BOCKRIS LETTER OF INTEREST TO ALL
From Dr. John O'M. Bockris
BOCKRIS LETTER OF INTEREST TO ALL
From Dr. John O'M. Bockris:
When I resided in Hamburg, Germany in 1937 and '38, I recall writing to a friend to say that, if the German paper said that the USA had been invaded by the British from Canada, - great U.S. losses in Detroit, - the Germans would believe it. There was no possibility of checking (the discovery of radios tuned to the BBC carried a Death Sentence).
A key to the technique Murray uses is outrage and anger. As you say, - I can't believe this, - you claim, - why this is absurd, - that one atom turns into another? But that is magic and Medieval Alchemy, and etc., etc., etc.
Science is a 90% game. Don't take it too seriously. There has been in this century perhaps no more utterly idiotic idea than de Broglie's suggestion that Waves accompany solid particles. Compared with the transparent lunacy of this idea, low temperature transmutation is an easy catch. But de Broglie's suggestion is now the basis of Modern Physics.
Transmutation research has been going on in modern scientific journals since at least 1937 and the first paper I could quote you is by Enrico Fermi himself, - the electrolysis of deuterated ice to give neutrons and He3.
Now, to Gleeson and Co.:
The evidence you have sent me and the descriptions sound good. Here are my worries.
(1) Of course, the removal of radioactivity from the solution is classical electrochemistry. AC is never 100% symmetrical and electrochemical processes rectify. Hence, there will be deposition on each electrode. The radioactivity will leave the solution and go to the electrodes. No big deal.
(2) The high temperature and pressure will tend to dissolve the electrodes and shower lots of stuff into the solution. This will be greatly helped by the AC which will help dissolution electrochemically. As to what gets into the solution in this classical way, -- I suggest a mass balance. Dissolve the electrodes completely in hot aqueous regia (be careful!) and have the solution completely analyzed for everything. Then, you know what you've got. Would an independent observer be able to account for the new material from what is in the electrodes?
Then I would suggest surrounding the cell with 4 to 6 Geiger counters and following the total radioactivity in the cell. The radiation should be unconcerned with screening and come out anyway. Thus, if there is no transmutation, the total of the gammas will be the same throughout the process of AC. electrolysis. Of course, transmutation will change the radiation. Use a gamma-ray spectroscope and it may be possible to detect new materials by their signal.
One last thing: Why are not transmutationists in fax and e-mail touch with Mizuno and Co.? They have such good apparatus and are very active. Reiko Notoya, too, has more reports of radioactivity in electrodes than any one. All at Hokkaido University.
COMMENTS BY HAL FOX:
Dr. Bockris has made some excellent suggestions for the Cincinnati Group experiments. Here are some possible problems: The LENT-1 reactor uses a thick-walled metal electrode which would shield most of the emissions detected by a Geiger-Mueller tube. Operations in an open beaker have been successful, however, the gradual creation of precipitate may move the radioactivity from one part of the cell to another part of the cell. Critics would immediately point out that the reduction in overall emissions were the result of change of position of radioactive materials with respect to the Geiger counters.
The chemical analytical techniques are one of the best methods available, however, the methods are very expensive. Due to the small amount of thorium currently used in the LENT-1 protocol (one-tenth of a gram of thorium), the byproducts of the expected nuclear reactions must be measured in parts per million. We have made just such measurements in replicating the LENT-1 protocols. Critics will claim contamination just as the infamous ERAB committee's report on cold fusion did.
The gamma-ray spectroscopy is, in our opinion, the best method to be used. Here are the tools required:
For a price tag ranging from about $10,000 to $25,000, you can be reasonably well equipped to make a series of low-energy nuclear reactions and measure the results (just as we are doing and publishing our findings in this publication). We now have in our laboratory a sodium-iodide gamma-ray detector and a Pentium PC with a 2,000 channel analyzer, plus software. See our initial experimental measurements on page ??.
The basis of the multi-channel analyzer and sensor is to turn gamma-ray emissions into electric signals, amplify the signals, and store the signals by energy levels, in various bins in the 2,000 channel analyzer. Almost all nuclear reactions are characterized by the emission of gamma rays (electro-magnetic photons ranging in energy from a few kilovolts to tens of megavolts). Here are the gamma-ray energy levels for thorium and its daughter products:
Element Gamma-E(KeV) Thorium-232 59 (weak) Radium-228 14 (weak) Actinium-228 911, 969, 338 Thorium-228 84, 216, 132, 166 Radium-224 240 Radon-220 550 Polonium-216 805 (weak) Lead-212 239, 300 Bismuth-212 40, 727 Polonium-212 -- Thallium-208 2615, 583, 511 Lead-208 stableAssume that thorium nitrate is dissolved in pure distilled water. It is deemed to be unlikely that either radon-220 or any of the nuclear reaction byproducts following thorium would be of any importance in the LENT-1 reactor because radon is a gas and would likely escape. If present, the observed amounts would be very small. The thorium-232 and the radium-228 give off weak gammas which may or may not be detected by the gamma spectroscope. However, the actinium-228, thorium-228, and radium-224 should provide suitable signals so that the thorium daughter products can be observed. The gamma-ray spectroscope can be calibrated by making measurements from the "before-processing" solution of thorium nitrate in distilled water.
Here are the technical challenges: The gamma-ray background is present everywhere. Even with a barrel-sized lead shield, there are still a lot of gamma-ray background emanations. The background changes with a change in whatever material is placed into the measuring area. Different metal "targets" will show a different background. Radioactive potassium is everywhere and must be considered.
Cosmic ray gammas travel through everyone's body at the rate of an average 11 per second. Assume that in the LENT-1 Reactor, a proton will penetrate the thorium-232 nuclei. If the thorium-232 fuses with the proton then protactinium-233 is produced. This isotope decays by beta emission with a half life of 27.8 days and becomes uranium-233 which decays by alpha emission. If the thorium-232 is being bombarded with protons, what is the probability of creating an unstable nuclei that will fission and what is the probability that the proton energy will be just sufficient to provide a fusion event? We don't know the answer, but it is reasonable to look for the gamma-ray energy characteristic of protactinium-233 (312 KeV).
Thorium (and all heavy elements) is neutron rich. Oxygen-16 has 8 protons and 8 neutrons -- a fifty-fifty ratio of neutrons to protons. Thorium-232 has 90 protons and 142 neutrons -- a ratio of more than 3 to 2. If nuclear fission reactions take place, then the reactions will have to get rid of many excess neutrons. Many scientists believe that this type of nuclear reaction MUST emit neutrons. No over-background neutron emission has been observed from the operation of the LENT-1 reactor.
What other possibilities are there to shed neutrons? The answer is by beta emission. In this reaction, the unstable isotope (example Protactinium-233) emits an energetic electron from one of its neutrons that changes the neutron to a proton. This process is called beta emission and is a highly predominant reaction following the fissioning of many uranium atoms. As previously reported in this publication, the beta-emission radioactivity of the electrodes after a 30-minute processing time is largely due to betas being emitted from unstable isotopes where the neutrons are changed to protons. Because this radioactivity decays over time, this experimental data is judged to be a highly positive indication of LENT-1 nuclear reactions. A series of nuclear reactions by beta decay almost always ends up with a stable isotope. Here is another major problem: The time in which stable isotopes can be formed by beta decay can be relatively short. Most of the beta decay half-lives are less than an hour. To get significant and valid data ABOVE BACKGROUND into the 2,000 channels of the gamma-ray spectroscope multi-channel analyzer requires reasonable exposure times. Regardless of what the experimenter will be able to report, the skeptics will be most likely to claim that the experimental data is inconclusive.
The perjorations of the "Internet oratorical society" have, as yet, added almost no intelligent suggestions that were not already obvious to a trained scientist. That does not mean that an exchange of information on the Internet should be avoided. We do suggest that Internet surfers should seek for peer-review (with all of its faults) and essentially ignore those who are not qualified to instruct the community of scholar s. We don't want to interfere with the fun of those eager writers, who, unencumbered by education or experience, are titillated with the idea that millions can read the results as they play the role of scientific critic in the world's most democratic forum.
Therefore, if you want to get some hands-on scientific training AND BECOME ONE OF THE FIRST CADRE OF NEW-ENERGY SCIENTISTS, organize yourselves into small groups and get started. Just like an investment club, the members can put in their monthly contributions, a nuclear reaction club can marshal their assets and capabilities and become new low-energy nuclear scientists. We will support you with a vehicle for information exchange and we won't tell you that you don't know what you are doing because it is impossible.
[Two charts are given in the NEN: Before-Processing Thorium Nitrate Spectrum, and After-Processing Zr Disk Electrode Spectrum, Counts (0-1k) vs. Channe; (0-511). PB.]
Dec. 10, 1997.