Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion 27206

Directory

High School Girl Produces Gold from Reagent Grade Chemicals
Wednesday, December 18, 1996
In an attempt to satisfy the requirements of a Science Fair, a 16 year old
female High School student from Dallas, Texas undertook the replication of 
an experiment conducted at Texas A&M; University in 1992 by Dr. John O'M
Bockris under the direction of Joe Champion.  The outcome of the experiment
was validated by a four observers, inclusive of a research scientist from
UCLA.  During their observations  they attest to the authenticity of the
following:
an unusual phenomena occurred, for only 5.0 grams of Ag was placed into the
original matrix of the thermal burn and the total combined precious metals
observed at the end of the experiment was greater than 8.7 gram, and  
the ending material has a significant presence of gold, whereas the
starting material was confirmed by myself to be void.
The results were determined by the physical collection of the ending
precious metals using standard metallurgical techniques.  
NOTE: Pictures available at: http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/student.html
As mentioned this high school student demonstrated this experiment in
Dallas, Texas.  At the conclusion of the process, the results were
communicated to myself (Joe Champion) 1,500 miles away in Phoenix, Arizona.
Needless to say, I find a certain irony of having a 16 year old female
science student validating my research to others, inclusive of an elite
member of the scientific community.
Furthermore, since the above published experiment deals with the synthesis
of precious metals from reagent grade chemicals (no mineral component) this
strengthens my position that esoteric techniques used in the reclamation of
precious metals from complex ores to be a farce.  For the reality is -- the
chemicals constituents of the ore act as the catalyst for low energy
nuclear transmutation. 
Joe Champion
http://www.netzone.com/~discpub
email:	discpub@netzone.com

NYT " Certain features of sonoluminescence are clear. One is the
tremendous concentration of energy the phenomenon can produce;....
[pictures]  Dr. Putterman said no one has yet proved by photographs or
other means that shock waves are the cause of the phenomenon, although
the indirect evidence for shock waves is strong.
  There are many variations of the imploding shock wave theory." NYT
I needed the above for future reference. I have a patent application
whose guiding theory is that sonoluminescence is the creation of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization RSNM. For that reason I
have interest in this science. I asked the question a long time ago
since neutrons glow blue. Is the blue from sonoluminescence the glow of
neutrons?
  Now I have a new question. The outer core of the Earth is liquid. Is
the outer core a good environment for sonoluminescence?

In article <01BBF802.3F5CF3E0@ts014p4.pop9a.netvision.net.il>, 
poratmy@nvsgi1.netvision.net.il (Porat) writes, in respondes to a
different post:
>and now to another point of yours John. 
>you said that the electronic  microscope produces
> (please notice  every word of yours)
> images and diffraction patterns that 
>unequivocally  demonstrate....     you have only images and 
>diffraction patterns. you speak accurately as you should do !. 
>no one today can really see the atom as it is,
>not to mention the Nucleus!. 
>suppose that someone suggests  that at each such joint that you 
>see in your  microscope, there are two atoms very close to each other
>(with no electrons between them !!)  (this
> is not just a wild guess and there  might be
> a broader basis for claiming it). suppose there is such a
>possibility,- without entering into the
>argument whether it ispossible or not -
>the question is:  will you in such a case be able to notice,
>with your microscope,
>the difference between a single or a double atom. ?
This situation (a "double atom") can be discounted based on X-Ray
crystallography.  X-rays are diffracted by electrons.  In X-ray 
crystallography a regular array of electrons diffract X-rays in
very definite directions (note that most people think of this
experiment as a regular array of ATOMS diffracting the X-Rays -
in fact, it is the electrons which are diffracting, but they are 
in a regular array because they are associated with the atoms).  
By measuring the intensity of the diffracted X-rays, crystallographers
can work backwords and determine the arrangement of the electrons
in the crystal.  They can then associate atoms with the electrons, and
ultimately come up with the arrangement of the atoms in the crystal.
It is this last step that is relevent.  The distribution of electron
density for any given type of atom is (to a first approximation)
independent on the chemical environment of the atom.  This is important
in crystallography because it means that crystallographers can compare
measured electron density centered around one spot in the lattice to 
what they would expect if a certain atom resided at that spot.  For
example, the electron density of a chlorine atom (with 17 electrons) and
of a bromine atom (35 electrons) are very different, so they can be clearly
distinguished from one another in a crystal structure even though they
are chemically very similar.
So what does this have to do with your "double atom" theory?  Well, we
can get an idea of what the electron density of a "single" nickel atom
looks like by doing an X-ray crystal structure determination of a material 
which is known to have well separated nickel atoms (like nickel carbonyl -
Ni(CO)4) and compare it to the electron density of a nickel atom in 
nickel metal.  If you were to have a "double atom" of nickel in which two 
nickel nuclei where very close together with no electrons between them, 
then we would expect a very different distribution of the 56 electrons 
associated with these two nickel atoms than we would expect if the 
structure of nickel metal was simply that of "single" nickels atoms in a 
face-centered cubic array.  Guess what - the electron density for the Ni
atom in nickel carbonyl looks nearly identical to that of nickel metal!
So, I'm sorry to say, your idea of two nickel atoms close to one another 
with no electrons in between is not consistant with the measured
crystallographic data.
Regards,
Mike Diebold
************************************************************************
   Comments are of the author and do not reflect DuPont policy, etc.
************************************************************************

In article <01bbf90b$e7139f80$3507cccf@netzone.netzone.com>, "Joe Champion"
 wrote:
>In an attempt to satisfy the requirements of a Science Fair, a 16 year old
>female High School student from Dallas, Texas undertook the replication of 
>an experiment conducted at Texas A&M; University in 1992 by Dr. John O'M
>Bockris under the direction of Joe Champion.
>the ending material has a significant presence of gold, whereas the
>starting material was confirmed by myself to be void.
>Needless to say, I find a certain irony of having a 16 year old female
>science student validating my research to others, inclusive of an elite
>member of the scientific community.
This is hardly an independent validation of your results when you have
supervised the experiment and were the one to confirm the absence of gold
in the starting conditions. This is basically you doing the experiment
twice, undoubtedly with the same analysis, measurement techniques etc. At
best you have shown you can do things the same way more than once. This is
far short of validation of your results.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."