A few months ago, K. Peters and I published an account of experiments we had made in an attempt to transmute hydrogen into helium ("Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges.",(vol) 59, 2039, 1926). A more or less detailed account of this publication appeared in the columns of Nature (vol. 118, p. 526, 1926), and perhaps I may be permitted to refer to a more recent publication on the same topic by K. Peters, P. Gunther, and myself ("Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges.", (vol) 60, 808, 1927). In this communication, as a result of further experiments, we feel that we are in a position to give an explanation of the occurrence of the observed very small quantities of helium in our experiments, without having recourse to the assumption of a synthesis of helium.

In the first-mentioned communication we considered the penetration of helium from the atmosphere through the glass walls of the apparatus to be the most likely source of trouble in such experiments, and we excluded this possibility by the use of vacuum jackets, immersion in water, and similar devices. In addition, we also discussed the possibility of regarding the helium dissolved in the glass as an explanation of the observed effects, but blank experiments led us to the conclusion that the quantity of helium capable of being liberated in this way was beyond the limits of sensitivity of our method of detection. In the interval we have carried out experiments both in the Baker Laboratory of Cornell and in the Chemical Laboratory of the University of Berlin, and these have shown that the liberation of helium from glass (and from asbestos) is dependent on the presence of hydrogen. Thus glass tubes which gave off no detectable quantities of helium when they were heated in a vacuum or in oxygen were found to yield helium in quantities of the order of 10-9 cc when they were heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen. Now in the earlier experiments the glass tubes containing palladium yielded helium, whereas the empty glass tubes used in control experiments did not; and since the former tubes would fill hydrogen on the application of heat, we see that the source of helium lay not in the palladium but in the glass, in spite of appearances to the contrary.

Our method of detecting helium is sufficiently sensitive to show that a glass tube which has been completely freed from its content of helium by heating in hydrogen takes up a detectable amount of neon-free helium from the atmosphere even after only one day's contact with the air.

Since asbestos behaves similarly to glass, we now see why one particular palladium preparation, bought as palladium-asbestos, yielded large quantities (10^-7 cc) of helium after being charges with hydrogen. Here, obviously, in contrast to the preparations we made ourselves, the asbestos had not been ignited until it was free from helium, and a fraction of the residual helium was always liberated by heating when the palladium was charged with hydrogen, whereas in oxygen no development of helium could be observed.

As a result of our more recent experiments we have thus established that, in using an apparatus made of glass, one cannot make any trustworthy statement as to the origin of 10^-9 cc of helium if air comes in contact with the apparatus, parts of which are later heated in hydrogen. By avoiding all heating of the apparatus, we shall endeavor to decide whether a transmutation of hydrogen into helium of the order of 10^-9 cc or less takes place. In any case, the amount of helium formed in experiments on electric discharges, as tested by various workers and by ourselves, and in experiments on the action of palladium, does not reach the order of magnitude of 10^-8 cc.

It is scarcely necessary to emphasize the fact that the sensitiveness of our method, though limited to 10^-8 cc, is sufficient to decide with certainty the other questions dealt with in our first communication, such as the helium content of meteorites, the helium development of radioactive deposits, and so on.

Fritz Paneth, Berlin, Mar. 2

Review of article by F. A. Paneth and K. Peters; published in Nature, May 14 1927

The current (September) issue of "Berichte" of the German Chemical Society contains a paper by Profs. F. Paneth and K. Peters on "The Transformation of Hydrogen into Helium," in which they describe in outline how they have succeeded in detecting the presence of very minute amounts of helium, of the order of one hundred millionth of a cubic centimeter, derived from hydrogen which had been absorbed by finely divided palladium at the ordinary temperature.

Theory indicating that this conversion would involve the liberation of much energy (6.4 x 10¹¹ cal. from 4 gram-atoms of hydrogen), the author's primary task was to find out if the change would take place without introducing energy from outside, e.g. in the presence of a catalyst; and in order to be able to detect very small quantities of helium they elaborated the spectroscopic method in such a way that the limiting amount detectable was 10^-8 - 10^-9 cc, or 10^-12 - 10^-13 gm. Easily liquefiable gas was removed with liquid air and charcoal; oxygen was added and the hydrogen burnt on the surface of the catalyst; water-vapour and excess oxygen were removed with charcoal, and the residual gas was passed into a glass capillary-tube of 0.1 mm section, which was surrounded with electro-wires and placed before the slit of the spectroscope. Every precaution was taken to exclude atmosphere helium; the portion of the apparatus that was heated was surrounded with a vacuum-mantle and immersed in water. The presence of neon lines afforded a most valuable criterion of the presence of atmospheric gases; neon was never completely excluded, but the amount present was so small that it did not invalidate the author's main conclusion. The method is so delicate that the liberation of helium from a mixture of thorium B and thorium C was easily detected, while it is sufficiently sensitive to determine the presence of helium in a few cubic centimeters of natural gas. By its means a natural gas containing 0.19 percent by volume of helium was discovered in Germany, and steps have been taken to exploit it commercially. The Canadian natural gas from which helium is extracted contains 0.33 percent by volume.

Attempts were made to effect the transformation by submitting hydrogen to the action of a silent electro-discharge in an ozone apparatus, and by passing a prolonged and powerful discharge through it in a Geissler-tube fitted with aluminum electrodes; but no success was achieved. Nor was the attempt to produce helium by bombarding certain salts with cathode rays, as suggested by Lord Rayleigh, any more fertile, so that recourse was had to passing fairly large amounts of hydrogen - up to one liter - through heated palladium, in the hope that at the moment of exit a fraction of the protons and electrons would combine to form the helium nucleus. In this case the indications were favorable, but the result was inconclusive owing to the presence of atmospheric neon, and the absence of any proportionality between the strength of the helium lines and the amount of hydrogen that was used.

Finely divided palladium, either as sponge, 'black', or palladinised asbestos, was then used to absorb hydrogen at room temperature, and after different intervals of time the hydrogen was combined with oxygen, as previously described. The residual gas obtained after a 12-hours' contact between palladium and hydrogen exhibited four or five lines of the helium spectrum and no neon lines; there was also a distinct proportionality between the amount of helium observed and the duration of the time of contact. The activity of the different palladium preparations employed varied considerably; it invariably diminished with repeated use, but both the power of absorbing hydrogen and of effecting the transformation were restored by heating the hydrogen or oxygen, in a mixture of these gases, or in a vacuum. No helium production was observed with palladium preparations that did not absorb hydrogen, although preparations were occasionally obtained that absorbed hydrogen well but gave little or no helium, especially if the hydrogen had been absorbed at a high temperature.

The above results indicated that palladium preparations that have long remained unused at room temperature should contain a little helium (not of atmospheric origin). Examination of a number of such specimens showed that helium was present in all of them, and in particular a specimen of palladinised asbestos, which had been purchased from Kahlbaum two years previously, was found to be relatively very rich, 1 gm of it containing 10^-6 cc of practically pure helium. After this specimen had been heated to expel the helium, and treated with oxygen for twelve hours, no fresh helium was detected, but at the end of five hours in contact with hydrogen a considerable amount of helium was found. This experiment was performed three times with the same result. The palladium, however, gradually lost its activity; at the beginning it produced helium at the rate of 10^-8 - 10^-7 cc per day; after twenty treatments it became inactive. Its activity was restored, although not to the original degree, in the manner described above. Finely divided platinum is less active than palladium, and the action of pyrophoric nickel is weaker still.

The authors discuss fully the possible sources of error in their experiments, such as the ingress of atmospheric helium, the adsorptive capacity of glass for helium, the conceivable preferential adsorption of helium by palladium, or by asbestos, and the possibility of helium being formed as a radio-active disintegration product of palladium; all of which they consider to be excluded. The hydrogen and oxygen used by them contained less than 0.001 per cent of air. They were not able to detect any trace of the energy liberated during the transformation, and they point out that the amount set free from the conversion of such small quantities of hydrogen - about 0.28 calorie - would be extremely difficult to detect, and particularly so if thermal changes due to absorption or formation of compounds also take place. They incline to the view that the liberated energy is more likely to appear as radiation, e.g. as gamma or Millikan-rays (cosmic rays), than as heat.

(These authors later acknowledged that they could not measure He with enough precision in order to be able to draw a conclusion)

Ravage

today is a good day for Quantum computers! Excerpt: "Now, however, physicists in France have used a different take on the Doppler shift to measure the rate at which currents of spin-polarized electrons flow through a conductor. The technique could help in the development of spintronic devices, which use both the spin and current of electrons to store and process information more efficiently than conventional electronics."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36250

American Institute of Physics, Number 875, October 15, 2008 by Phillip F. Schewe, James Dawson, and Jason S. Bardi published an article describing experiments with ultra cold molecules. Excerpt: "This, in turn, would help to make possible a quantum-based computer at the nanoscopic level, able to execute certain calculations, such as searching large data bases or factoring large numbers into component parts, much faster than conventional digital computers."

Ravage, after reading the article I finally understood what you meant by quantum computers. Fascinating! Will keep an eye on quantum computers startups and buy some stock
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/875.html

Introduction:

This article is not meant to be critical of the Theoretical Physics Establishment or the current state of knowledge in Physics. Rather, it tries to identify specific areas where more study and experimentation are necessary.

Orbital (electron) energy levels:

Atoms have their electrons orbiting around the nucleus on specific orbits with which specific energy levels are associated. This arrangement of particles inside an atom is explained by the quantum theory. The study of this arrangement raises a question that has not been answered: "How is it possible for the electrons orbiting the nucleus to maintain their orbits?" They are loosing energy moving accelerated in an electric field so as they loose energy, they have to regain it to maintain their specific orbit. Where is that energy coming from? How is said energy transferred to the electrons?

Interactions at a distance and the concept of field:

Although usually defined in a circular definition (the definition contains the word "field") a field has properties such as mass and momentum associated with objects. What is it made of? What is the mechanism of interactions propagating at a distance through said field?


Dark matter:

The universe is expanding when it shouldn't. Is there extra mass out there we cannot detect (dark matter) or is there an external force acting upon the universe and stretching it?


The Casimir effect:

Did the Casimir effect prove the existence of zero-point energy? Or can it be explained without explicitly referring to the vacuum field?


Did the speed of light always had the same value?

Various theories propose the speed of light changed and/or changes with time. If true this would change cosmology.


Cold fusion:

Is there more to cold fusion than interesting laboratory experiments? Can we use it industrially to produce cheap(er) energy?


Anti-gravity:

Today, anti-gravity neighbors with the warp drive and the flux capacitor on the science fiction shelf. Will it stay there forever?

The theory of relativity?

"Relative" in the theory of relativity means: "with respect to..". Thus the implication is not uncertain knowledge but certain knowledge.

October 2-nd, 2008

Copyright © Constantin Popa 2008 All rights reserved

Located near Geneva, close to the border between Switzerland and France, the Large Hadron Collider is the largest particle accelerator in the world at a cost of about 9 billion dollars.

It is strange how we love to put all of our eggs in one basket. At the same time 9 billion was spent on the LHC, Dr Bussard could not find a few million for his fusion reactor. Don't get me wrong, the Physicists working at CERN are some of the best in the world and the reason I'm mentioning them is the analogy between the LHC and the TOKAMAK approach to fusion.

We've been promised fusion since the 50' and there is very little to show in terms of practical achievements. But we made the decision that the TOKAMAK is the way to go. How can we tell if the TOKAMAK path is the right one before it works? And what is a few millions more if it means following two avenues to fusion?

Dr Bussard talks at Google, Novemeber 9-th, 2006, see video. This presentation can be understood by anyone that has completed the Physics sequence in an engineering program or the equivalent.

Copyright © Constantin Popa 2008 All rights reserved

This is a loose rendition of a speech given by the late Dr. Bussard of EMC2 at Google on November 9, 2006. The talk covered the history of the IEC fusor at EMC2, why Tokamak is not the answer and a brief history of previous fusion ideas and experiments and how they contributed to the IEC concept.

We are bombarded with information about alternative energy sources. Why don't we hear more about fusion? I don't have the answer but I do know why fusion is important. If we burn hydrogen and oxygen we obtain water and energy. The energy released for each water molecule is about 10 eV. The energy obtained fusing a deuterium and tritium atom is 17.6 MeV. Almost 2 million times more. That's because in chemical reactions the heat generated or absorbed is due to removed or added chemical bonds while in a nuclear reaction some mass converts to energy conform Einstein's E=mc2 equation.

Mass to energy conversion is efficient but hard to control and potentially dangerous. All stars, our sun included, as nuclear reactors and nuclear and thermonuclear weapons use mass to energy conversion. Mass to energy conversions happen in two types of nuclear interactions: fission and fusion.
Fission generates radioactive materials and radiation besides energy (Remember Three miles island, Chernobyl and any detonated nuclear or thermonuclear bomb).

Fusion can be "hot", "cold" or "generally cold, locally hot". "Hot" fusion examples are the stars (such as our sun) or thermonuclear explosions (not to be mistaken with nuclear explosions, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear explosions, the Bikini atoll experiment was a thermonuclear explosion).

"Cold" fusion examples: muon-catalyzed fusion and electrodes (usually palladium) in heavy water. The first one works but is not efficient, the second one has been tried but up to date there are no clear results. Most experiments have reported intermittent production of excess energy that cannot be reproduced on demand.

"Generally cold, locally hot fusion" is the type of fusion we will concentrate from now on. I will use the term "fusor" for all devices designed to achieve this kind of fusion and GCLH for "Generally cold, locally hot" fusion.

To achieve fusion, 2 nuclei have to be brought close enough so that the strong nuclear force is larger than the electrostatic repulsion allowing the 2 nuclei to fuse into one and release energy. Overcoming the electrostatic repulsion requires an amount of energy higher than the energy barrier also named the Coulomb barrier which is specific for each fuel mixture. Passing the Coulomb barrier requires kinetic energy. It can happen three ways: One moving nucleus hits a nucleus at rest, Beam-Target fusion. Two moving nuclei collide, Beam-Beam fusion. Both nuclei are moving as part of a plasma near thermal equilibrium, Thermonuclear fusion.

The Lawson criterion. It was first derived by John D. Lawson and it evaluates the product of density, confinement time and plasma temperature vs. a minimum required to achieve sustained fusion (ignition).

Confinement. To achieve and sustain fusion, we need to keep the fuel nuclei in a limited region of space at a sufficiently "hot" temperature and for enough time for them to fuse. Confinement can be gravitational (the gravitational field of a star would be needed), magnetic (charged ions follow helical path along field lines, Tokamak, Stellarator and mirror confinement) and inertial (H-bomb, laser, ion, beam, electron beam and Z-pinch).

The best confinement, found in stars, is gravitational confinement because the action of the field upon nuclei always points towards the center of the sphere of matter.

Magnetic confinement. From the Stellarator to Tokamak and then to the Spherical Tokamak (ST) huge advances were made in controlling the D-T fusion. The same problems remain: plasma losses due to holes in the containing magnetic field, size (it takes hundreds or thousands of nuclei rotations along the field lines to achieve fusion and their orbit grows with each revolution so the reactor has to be big), tritium is made by absorbing the generated neutrons into a melted lithium pool (sitting next to super cooled electromagnets) and no sun is toroidal .

Inertial confinement. Rapidly raise the temperature and pressure of a small fuel pellet to induce partial fusion. To rapidly raise the temperature and pressure of the pellet several methods are used: x-rays (thermonuclear bomb), laser (shiva and nova at Lawrence-Livermore), ions, electron beam, z-pinch, and controlled explosions.

Stars generate a lot of energy because they're big but if we look at the rate of energy generated per volume, the human body generates 4 times more energy. Obviously stellar fusion reactions are not useful to us. The table below lists some of the fusion reactions that are worth considering and offers an easy way to judge their advantages and disadvantages:

Examples of fusion reactions, their energy and neutron output
Neutrons output   Reaction formula   Total fusion energy   Non neutron energy (W/m3/kPa2)   Neutronicity   Power density   Relative to D/T
High neutron output   21D + 31T -> 42He + n0   17.6 MeV   3.5 MeV   .80   34   1
Low neutron output   21D + 21D -> 31T   12.5 MeV   4.2 MeV   .66   .43   .013
Neutron free output   p+ + 115B -> 342He   8.7 MeV   8.7 MeV   .001   .014   .00041



To be continued and revised...09/24/2008

Copyright © Constantin Popa 2008 All rights reserved

Hola muchachos and muchachas,

Don't know if you're aware of it, but MS Research makes a lot of their projects available on their website for free. These are not 'products' and may be in some pretty scary state (eg pre-alpha) but do have some interesting ideas.

http://research.microsoft.com/

Are there any other users on here who use SAGE as  their CAS? I'm interested in using the PyUNO interface on Open Office to 'hook in' SAGE to it, something similar to Scientific Notebook.

So, the article on /. about warping light into rings for applications in BEC and fissions reactors seemed rather interesting. Has anyone read the actual Nature article yet?