In Defense of Nuclear Physics

From Quantum Diaries: In Defense of Nuclear Physics
By Byron Jennings

This song always reminds me of nuclear physics. The scales (i.e. sizes) involved in nuclear physics are too large to be of interest to the reductionists, also known as particle physicists. They say it is just chemistry. The chemists, on the other hand, are not interested because the scales are too small. Nuclear physics, the archetypal in-between science, has scales too short to apply directly to everyday life and too long to be at the cutting edge of short-distance physics. In-between science includes atomic physics, low energy nuclear physics, QCD and, if the LHC is successful, electro-weak physics. At the other end of the scale, we have the solar system and galactic science which have too a short a scale to be of interest to the cosmologists who are doing science at scales the size of the visible universe.

So, why do in-between science? Let’s take low-energy nuclear physics, the physics done at rare isotope facilities like TRIUMF’s ISAC facility, as an example. The nucleus is an intriguing object. It is built of neutrons and protons which are themselves emergent objects, that is, objects that are not present explicitly in the underlying QCD model. They emerge from solving that model. It is somewhat like building on sand, but as in the case of sand castles, that can be productive and interesting. Actually, things are not so bad. We now have a very good understanding of the relation between low-energy nuclear physics and QCD.

The nucleus is self-bound: the forces between the components hold it together. This allows all kinds of behaviour: it rotates, vibrates, has single-particle excitations, and pairing. It slices, it dices… well let’s not get carried away, this isn’t a TV commercial. Disentangling the various types of excitation can be fun—just get any of my experimental colleagues going on the topic. There are real intellectual challenges in sorting it all out. Great progress has been made but we are not at the end of the trail yet.

We also know a lot about nuclear power (no not in reactors, but in the stars). Stars are powered by gravitationally confined nuclear fusion. No need to build tokomaks—the universe has been powered by nuclear fusion from the beginning. To understand how the universe evolves through time, it is necessary to understand this energy source. And it’s not just ordinary stars, but novae and super novae are powered by nuclear energy as well. We are composed of the remnants of stars, remnants blown into space by novae and super novae explosions. We are star dust. Billion year old carbon.[2] To understand all this, is to understand nuclear physics. Explosive, short lived, and dynamic processes in the heavens depend on the properties of short-lived nuclear isotopes. Coming back down to our planet, the need for studying these isotopes and their associated reactions is fulfilled by facilities like ISAC which make and study short lived isotopes.

Even more down to earth, is nuclear medicine. Medical imaging, using short lived nuclear isotopes, explores questions such as, ‘What causes Parkinsonism?’ and ‘Can we catch Alzheimer’s disease at an early stage and cure it?’ Radiation has been used to cure cancer for a long time now and more progress is being made. In diagnosis and treatment, nuclear medicine is now mainstream. Cyclotrons, once the hallmark of elite physics departments, are now almost a necessity at research hospitals. The pure research in nuclear physics had led to benefits beyond our wildest dreams

And finally nuclear bombs; destruction beyond our wildest dreams. I would guess that in the USA, the right to keep and bear nuclear arms is covered by the second amendment. In any event, as with any science, nuclear physics can cure or kill. Fire keeps us warm, yet wood smoke is carcinogenic. What we need, always and everywhere, is reality-based thinking and responsible people.

To conclude, in-between science is driven by the same impulse that drives all science: a longing to know and a hope to help. Science at any scale is cool (or is that fundamental?).

I work like a dog with no recreation and they call me Mr In-between

Mr In-between, Mr In-between, makes a fellow mean, Mr In-between[1]

[1] From a song written by Harlan Howard and made popular by Burl Ives.

[2] From Woodstock by Joni Mitchell

Testing OPERA with Nuclear flare: A simple race between anti-neutrinos and photons.

From 2.0: Testing OPERA with Nuclear flare: A simple race between anti-neutrinos and photons
If we can produce neutrinos at the same time as photons,then detect which arrives first the question of neutrino speed vs light speed would be settled. CERN – OPERA measured neutrinos arriving faster than light would have, astronomers have measured neutrinos and light arriving at about the same time from supernovae. How can we verify the CERN – Opera experiment,reproduce the supernova result, and settle this question once and for all? We can do this by repurposing one of the most destructive things ever created by the hands of man, a atomic bomb.

Complication is the mother of all experimental doubt and error, and the OPERA experiment is indeed complicated. Any experiment which uses a setup largely similar to it will be dogged by the specter of error due to their complexities.

OPERA measured neutrinos arriving 60 nanoseconds before they would have if they moved at the speed of light and no faster.

Supernova SN1987A produced a burst of neutrinos and light. The neutrinos zipped from the core of the star to the surface without interacting with anything. This made the neutrinos arrive four minutes faster. The light would need to bounce around in the star just that long before exiting. Essentially the light and neutrinos arrived simultaneously. This is seen by some as a definitive test of vneutrino/vlight. Others are not so sure.

A simple race

The simplest most direct test would be to keep observing supernovae and see if their neutrino pulses arrive way before their light. The light and neutrinos travel through the same space, along the same path from source to observation. In essence it is a straight forward race between two particles. The problem is that some can doubt weather a given neutrino signal is from a particular supernova. We need more control at the point of production, we need a manmade supernova, we need to use a fusion bomb (or six). This would produce anti-neutrinos, but that should not affect their speed. (Using nuclear devices in this way was first proposed by Fred Reines and Clyde Cowan of Los Alamos National Laboratory http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?25-02.pdf)

The proposal is technically simple, but politically complicated.

1. Step1: Remove the warheads from two minuteman ICBM’s.
2. Step2: Mount said warheads on a Delta IV rocket, withwhatever is required to arm them once the probe has escaped from earth orbit,and safely away.
3. Step3: The probe should launch individual warheads (usingthe MIRV technology developed for the minute man). Once the probe is a safe distance away thewarhead will detonate.
4. Step4: The existing infrastructure of neutrino detectors canbe used in conjunction with simple telescopes and well known electronics to determinewhich is detected first. There are threepossible results from step four.

* A Vneutrino/Vlight>1 Neutrinos do travel faster than light.
* B Vneutrino/Vlight=1 Neutrinos travel only as fast as light.
* C Vneutrino/Vlight<1 Neutrinos travel at a lower speed than that of light.

This should be done multiple times to give the result some statistical significance. Three to six times would be most practical because a minuteman three has three MIRVed warheads.

I defy anyone to find a problem with the physical reasoning.

If the neutrinos are detected more than a few nano seconds before the light; then result A has been obtained. (For the same reason that ittakes light longer to exit the core of a star, neutrinos are less interactivethan light.) This would show without any ambiguity that OPERA was right, and neutrinos do travel faster than light. If neutrinos are as fast as OPERA indicates they should arrive a matter of seconds, not just nanoseconds, before the light. The distance from these explosions to the earth would be millions of miles. It would be a very clear signal.

If results B or C are obtained by this method then OPERA is wrong and we all have to live constrained by the speed of light.

Why this will probably never be done, politics.

This will never be done for one reason, politics. The physics is very clear that this would work as a test of neutrino speed. The problems come from non-scientific concerns. Sill valid, just not scientific in nature.

The partial test ban treaty has, since the 1960’s, prohibited nuclear weapons testing in space. That has been interpreted the use of any nuclear devices in space. It could be argued that this would not be a test of the warheads. We know they will work, never the less, we would need permission from the other signatories of that treaty. One would think Russia would not mind having two fewer minutemen pointed at them, but you never know.

Anti-Nuclear public sentiments, reinforced with some legitimate fear. A certain segment of the public is afraid any time we use nuclear technology in space. Notably in the generators of certain space probes such as the latest Mars rover set to launch very soon. The proposed experiment would use actual nuclear bombs. Devices designed to blowup and kill millions in the process. It is not inconceivable that an accident could lead to detonation. The warheads could arm on the Launchpad and the Delta IV could have a catastrophic failure. The results would be an almost unprecedented catastrophe.

Getting the political support needed to make this happen would be almost impossible. I just don’tsee congress and the president ever going along with this, let alone the international community. There is too much fear around the word nuclear. The chance of accidental detonation of an unarmed nuclear device is essentially zero. There is a better chance of being killed by lighting than by the described space mission. Such facts never get in the way of anti-nuclear hysteria.

The experiments done to date, or proposed for testing the OPERA result suffer from the same fundamental weakness. They are physically complicated in many and various ways. The simplest test would beusing a ready made supernova, a nuclear device. When these detonate a pulse of neutrinos is released as well as a pulse of light. We can detect which arrives first the anti-neutrinos or the light and that will give us a simple and definitive answer. This will likely never be done due to politics, and mostly irrational fear. So, keep watching the neutrino detectors and the skies for more supernovae. They are the best most direct test of OPERA’s results.

New posting schedule

Sorry for the long delay in posting - had some family issues.

The posting schedule for this blog - starting this Wednesday, Nov 23, will be Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Thanks for your patience!

Nobel Prize-winning physicist whose input led to finely tuned atomic clock

From the Irish Times: Nobel Prize-winning physicist whose input led to finely tuned atomic clock
NORMAN F RAMSEY: NORMAN F RAMSEY, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who developed a precise method to probe the structure of atoms and molecules and used it to devise a remarkably exact way to keep time, died in Wayland, Massachusetts, aged 96.

In 1949, Ramsey invented an experimental technique to measure the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation most readily absorbed by atoms and molecules. The technique allowed scientists to investigate their structure with greater accuracy and enabled the development of a new kind of timekeeping device known as the atomic clock. Ramsey received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1989 for both achievements.

“If you made a list of the most outstanding physicists of the 20th century, he’d be among the leaders,” said Leon M Lederman, emeritus director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, which Ramsey helped found. Early in the 20th century, physicists began to decipher the structure of atoms from measurements of the wavelengths of light they released and absorbed, a method called atomic spectroscopy. In 1937, the physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi of Columbia University developed a means of studying atoms and molecules by sending a stream of them through rapidly alternating magnetic fields. As Rabi’s student at Columbia in the late 1930s, Ramsey worked to refine it.

In 1949, when he was at Harvard, Ramsey discovered a way to improve the technique’s accuracy: exposing the atoms and molecules to the magnetic fields only briefly as they entered and left the apparatus. His approach – often referred to as the Ramsey method – is widely used today.

Ramsey’s research helped lay the groundwork for nuclear magnetic resonance, whose applications include the MRI technique now widely used for medical diagnosis. But the most immediate application of the Ramsey method has been in the development of highly accurate atomic clocks. Since 1967 it has been used to define the exact span of a second, not as a fraction of the time it takes Earth to revolve around the sun, but as 9,192,631,770 radiation cycles of a caesium atom.

In 1960, working with his student Daniel Kleppner, now an emeritus professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ramsey invented a different type of atomic clock, known as the hydrogen maser, whose remarkable stability has since been used to confirm the minute effects of gravity on time as predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Atomic clocks like the hydrogen maser are also used in the systems that track global positioning satellites.

Norman Foster Ramsey jnr was born on August 27th, 1915, in Washington, the son of Minna Bauer Ramsey, a mathematics teacher, and Norman Foster Ramsey, an army officer. After receiving his PhD under Rabi at Columbia, he worked at the MIT Radiation Laboratory and served as a radar consultant to the secretary of war. In 1943 he went to New Mexico to work on the Manhattan Project, leading a team that helped assemble the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. After the war, he taught for nearly four decades at Harvard. Although he officially retired in 1986 he continued his work and in recent years he collaborated with British physicists on the symmetry of the neutron.

Ramsey presided over the founding of Fermilab and the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, where he was the first head of the physics department in the 1940s. As the first science adviser to Nato, he initiated programmes to train European scientists. He led a committee that concluded in 1982 that, contrary to the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, acoustical evidence did not support the existence of a second gunman in the assassination of John F Kennedy.

Ramsey had an athletic flair. He learned to ski in Norway in the 1930s. Later, he took up long-board surfing and ice sailing, and he travelled with his second wife, Ellie Welch Ramsey, from the Himalayas to Antarctica.

His first wife, Elinor, died in 1983. In addition to his wife, he is survived by four daughters, Margaret Kasschau, Patricia Ramsey, Winifred Swarr and Janet Farrell; two stepchildren, Marguerite and Gerard Welch; eight grandchildren; and nine great-grandchildren.

Low levels of radioactive particles in Europe: IAEA

From Reuters: Low levels of radioactive particles in Europe: IAEA
Very low levels of radioactive iodine-131 have been detected in Europe but the particles are not believed to pose a public health risk, the U.N. nuclear agency said Friday, saying it was seeking to find the source.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based U.N. watchdog, said it did not believe the radioactive particles were from Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant after its emergency in March.

Experts said the origin of the radiation -- which has been spreading for about two weeks -- remained a mystery but could come from many possible sources ranging from medical laboratories or hospitals to nuclear submarines.

The Czech Republic's nuclear security watchdog said it had tipped off the IAEA after detecting the radiation it thought was coming from abroad but not from a nuclear power plant. It suggested it may come from production of radiopharmaceuticals.

Germany's Environment Ministry said slightly higher levels of radioactive iodine had been measured in the north of the country, ruling out that it came from a nuclear power plant.

Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and Sweden also reported traces at very low levels that did not pose a health risk.

Iodine-131, linked to cancer if found in high doses, can contaminate products such as milk and vegetables.

Paddy Regan, a professor of nuclear physics at Britain's University of Surrey, said the suggestion that it may have leaked from a radiopharmaceuticals maker "sounds very sensible and totally reasonable."

He said since iodine was used in the treatment of thyroid conditions it was also likely that hospitals in many European countries would have it in their stores.

"It would be very unlikely for it to have come from Fukushima since the accident was so many months ago and iodine-131 has a brief half-life," he said.

Iodine-131 is a short-lived radioisotope that has a radioactive decay half-life of about eight days, the IAEA said.

Massimo Sepielli, head of the nuclear fission unit of Italy's national alternative energy body ENEA said any number of sources could be to blame for the readings.

"It could be coming from the transporting of (nuclear) material, it could come from a hospital ... it could even come from a nuclear submarine, even if it's a more complicated possibility ... but you can't rule that out."

CAREFULLY CONTROLLED

Professor Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics at Britain's Royal Berkshire Hospital, said any link with Fukushima was extremely unlikely.

"It is far more likely that the iodine may be as a result of excretion by patients undergoing medical treatment. Whilst such patients are carefully controlled, some release of iodine into the environment may be inevitable but would certainly be well below any limits where health detriment would even begin to be an issue for concern," he said.

The IAEA said the Czech Republic's nuclear safety body had informed it that "very low levels" of iodine-131 had been measured in the atmosphere over the country in recent days.

"The IAEA has learned about similar measurements in other locations across Europe," the brief statement said.

"The IAEA is working with its counterparts to determine the cause and origin of the iodine-131."

The Czech watchdog said it had detected iodine-131 at a number of monitoring stations since late October. It said there was no health risk from the iodine.

"It was detected by our radiation monitoring network, with probability bordering on certainty the source is abroad. It is iodine-131 and we have asked the IAEA if they know what the source could be," Czech State Office for Nuclear Safety chief Dana Drabova told Reuters.

Officials in Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Finland, France, Britain, Switzerland, Poland and Norway said they had not detected any abnormal radiation levels. Romania's watchdog said there had been no incident at the country's sole nuclear plant.

Austria's Environment Ministry said small levels were measured in the east and north of the Alpine country, saying the estimated dose level for the population was one 40,000th of the dose of radiation received in a transatlantic flight.

In the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986, an earthquake followed by a massive tsunami overwhelmed the Fukushima plant in Japan, causing a reactor meltdown and leakage of radiation, including of iodine.

In the days and weeks after the accident, tiny amounts of iodine-131 believed to have come from Fukushima were detected as far away as Iceland and other parts of Europe, as well as in the United States.

Finding the next Einstein in Africa

From the Globe and Mail: Finding the next Einstein in Africa

When she left her home in war-torn Sudan a few years ago, Esra Khaleel found herself on a small campus near one of South Africa’s most famous beaches, where she could see the surfers and sunbathers from the windows.

But she never learned to swim. She was too focused on her work at the innovative new African science institute, where she eagerly explored the mysteries of the universe.

“The environment was 24-hour studying,” she marvels. “You felt so good, you didn’t feel tired – you just wanted to study. Sometimes we couldn’t even sleep from the excitement.”

Ms. Khaleel, who grew up in impoverished Darfur on the eve of a devastating civil war, had never been outside Sudan and had never spoken English before her arrival here. Today, thanks to her formative year at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, she is completing her doctorate in nuclear physics at a South African university and has spent time with Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist.

The computer laboratory at AIMS is filled with young men and women from across Africa who often study and work together until 2 or 3 a.m. before finally crashing in their dormitory rooms on the floor above. Until coming to AIMS, most were frustrated by the rote memorization methods of their classes at underfunded African schools. “We were so hungry to learn,” remembers Thifhelimbilu Singo, another recent graduate who is now completing a PhD in nuclear physics at nearby Stellenbosch University.

The institute, created in a former hotel in the beach town of Muizenberg near Cape Town in 2003, has produced 360 graduates from 31 African countries over the past eight years. Almost all have gone on to graduate degrees at universities around the world, and many are planning to return to their homelands to apply their knowledge to help solve Africa’s social and economic problems, from energy shortages to malaria transmission.

The institute is now rapidly expanding across the African continent, with $20-million in assistance from the Canadian government. A new branch has just opened in Senegal, and another is opening in Ghana next year, with Ethiopia and Tanzania likely to get the next branches. In total, the institute hopes to have 15 campuses across Africa by 2020.

The project is known as the “Next Einstein Initiative.” The belief is that the world’s next Albert Einstein could just as easily be found in Africa as anywhere else – if the educational opportunities exist.

In science and math, the gulf between Africa and the developed world is huge. Nearly a million students graduate from African universities every year, yet advanced scientific education is virtually unavailable, and the brightest students tend to leave Africa to work in Europe or North America. Only about 1 per cent of the world’s patents and scientific articles are from African-based researchers, and there are only two mathematics journals in the whole continent.

“When I meet the students, I see the richness that the world is losing by not having more African scientists,” says Carolina Odman-Govender, director of academic development for the Next Einstein Initiative.

“There’s so much potential that’s unseen and untapped. There are all these people who are brilliant but haven’t had a chance to shine. Many of them have never left their country before, never even flown before.”

Ms. Odman-Govender, a Swedish astrophysicist, was a teaching assistant at AIMS in its early days and later decided to return full-time. “It makes more sense to do science here than anywhere else because the impact is so much greater,” she says. “It’s a life-changing experience. You see them exceed the expectations every day.”

The founder and chairman of the institute is Neil Turok, a renowned physicist and long-time collaborator with Mr. Hawking. Born in South Africa to anti-apartheid activists, he now works in Canada as director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ont.

Mr. Turok believes the AIMS institute can contribute to an “African renaissance” by helping to overcome decades of underfunding and isolation at the continent’s universities. “Just think what will happen if Africa does for science what it has done for music, for literature and for art,” he wrote in The Globe and Mail last year. “Not only Africa, but the world could be transformed.”

Every year, about 50 to 60 students are accepted at the South African AIMS campus from all over Africa. A minimum of one-third are female. Nearly as many are accepted at the Senegal campus, and similar numbers are expected at future campuses in other African countries.

The 10-month program at AIMS includes intense classes in computer skills, language and mathematics. Competition to enter the institute is fierce: Only one of every five applicants is successful. They are truly the best and brightest of Africa’s science and math students.

Once they are accepted, tuition is free and travel costs are covered. They are given free accommodation and meals in the same building as their classes, allowing them to focus entirely on their studies. “They need to do their own laundry, and that’s about it,” Ms. Odman-Govender says. “And we provide the laundry machines and detergent.”

The professors and lecturers are volunteers, including Nobel Prize winners and other top scientists and mathematicians, who visit the AIMS campus for three-week teaching stints for a modest stipend. One of the key benefits of the institute is that the students can build a lifelong network of friends among their professors and fellow students, since they are together at meal times as well as in the laboratory and classroom.

“That’s the magic of AIMS,” says Bruce Bassett, a professor of cosmology and mathematics at the institute and at the University of Cape Town. “The students are networking. They’re eating with their professors and having a beer with them and working with them at 2 a.m. As a model, it’s brilliant.”

Ever Wonder What the Pre-Requisites are for a course in Nuclear Physics

From the University of Oslo: FYS3520 - Nuclear physics, structure and spectroscopy
Course content

Basic characteristics of the atomic nucleus. Single-particle motion and collective characteristics. Thermodynamics and low energy phase transitions in the nucleus. Radioactive disintegration processes. Nuclear reactions, fission and fusion. Super heavy nuclei and nuclei with extreme proton and neutron numbers. Nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae. Nuclear medicine, proton therapy and PET. Reactor physics and ADS thorium power plants.
Learning outcomes

The student should:

* be able to explain basic properties in the atomic nucleus. In more detail: one-particle motion and collective characteristics, thermodynamics and low energy phase transitions, radioactive disintegration processes, nuclear reactions, fission and fusion.
* know about super heavy nuclei and nuclei with extreme proton and neutron numbers, nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae, nuclear medicine, proton therapy and PET, reactor physics and ADS thorium power plants. The objective of this course is to give students a knowledge base when writing a master thesis in Experimental or Theoretical Nuclear Physics.


The student should be able to:

* show insight into the fundamental properties of the atomic nucleus, both the experimental and theoretical parts of the nucleus’ structure and dynamics.
* understand the different processes that determine the amounts of different elements in our solar system.
* evaluate various nuclear applications in medisine and energy.

Admission

Students at UiO must apply for courses in StudentWeb.

International applicants, if you are not already enrolled as a student at UiO, please see our information about admission requirements and procedures for international applicants.

The examination in this course is not available for external candidates. Only students admitted to the course may sit for the examination.
Prerequisites
Formal prerequisites

In addition to fulfilling the Higher Education Entrance Qualification, applicants have to meet the following special admission requirements:

One of these:

* Mathematics R1
* Mathematics (S1+S2)

And and in addition one of these:

* Mathematics (R1+R2)
* Physics (1+2)
* Chemistry (1+2)
* Biology (1+2)
* Information technology (1+2)
* Geosciences (1+2)
* Technology and theories of research (1+2)

The special admission requirements may also be covered by equivalent studies from Norwegian upper secondary school or by other equivalent studies. Read more about special admission requirements.
Teaching
Exam information
Assessment and grading

Course grades are awarded on a descending scale using alphabetic grades from A to E for passes and F for fail.
Evaluation of this course

Feedback from our students is essential to us in our efforts to ensure and further improve the high quality of our programmes and courses. As a student at the University of Oslo you will therefore be asked to participate in various types of evaluation of our courses, facilities and services. All courses are subject to continuous evaluation. At regular intervals we also ask students on a particular course to participate in a more comprehensive, in-depth evaluation of this course, a so called "periodic evaluation".
Contact us
Department of Physics

Visiting address:
Physics building, Sem Sælandsvei 24

Visiting hours:
Monday-friday 08:00-15:45

Postal address:
P.O. Box. 1048, Blindern
NO-0316 OSLO
Phone: +47 22 85 64 23
Fax: +47 22 85 64 22
E-mail: studieinfo@fys.uio.no
Web: http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/english/

Cold nuclear fusion

From the Journal of Nuclear Physics: Cold nuclear fusion
The article is illustrated with several diagrams - go to the original link to see them.

Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.

PACS.: 25.45 – deuterium induced reactions
Submitted to Physics of Atomic Nuclei/Yadernaya Fizika in Russian

Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature. Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2]. This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process. Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.

Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.

Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li. Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.

The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.

Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as

where for the DD fusion

Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression

that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis. In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73. Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:

Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):

Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be

this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:

The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances Coulomb repulsion.

The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,


Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:

Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22 sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.

Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.

Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.

Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.

References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).

Not Such a Stretch to Reach for the Stars

From New York Times: Not Such a Stretch to Reach for the Stars
ORLANDO, Fla. — A starship without an engine?

It may seem a fantastical notion, but hardly more so than the idea of building a starship of any kind, especially with NASA’s future uncertain at best.

Yet here in Orlando, not far from the launching site of the space program’s most triumphant achievements, the government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, drew hundreds this month to a symposium on the 100-Year Starship Study, which is devoted to ideas for visiting the stars.

Participants — an eclectic mix of engineers, scientists, science fiction fans, students and dreamers — explored a mix of ideas, including how to organize and finance a century-long project; whether civilization would survive, because an engine to propel a starship could also be used for a weapon to obliterate the planet; and whether people need to go along for the trip. (Alternatively, machines could build humans at the destination, perhaps tweaked to live in non-Earth-like environs.)

“The space program, any space program, needs a dream,” said one participant, Joseph Breeden. “If there are no dreamers, we’ll never get anywhere.”

It was Dr. Breeden who offered the idea of an engineless starship.

A physicist by training, he had most recently devised equations that forecast to banks how much they were going to lose on their consumer loans.

From his doctoral thesis, Dr. Breeden remembered that in a chaotic gravitational dance, stars are sometimes ejected at high speeds. The same effect, he believes, could propel starships.

First, find an asteroid in an elliptical orbit that passes close to the Sun. Second, put a starship in orbit around the asteroid. If the asteroid could be captured into a new orbit that clings close to the Sun, the starship would be flung on an interstellar trajectory, perhaps up to a tenth of the speed of light.

“The chaotic dynamics of those two allow all the energy of one to be transferred to the other,” said Dr. Breeden, who came toting copies of a paper describing the technique. “It’s a unique type of gravity assist.”

Darpa, by design, pursues out-of-the-box projects without immediate military use. (In the 1960s and 1970s, for instance, the agency laid the groundwork for the Internet.)

David L. Neyland, the director of tactical technology at Darpa, who orchestrated the one-year starship study, noted that his agency was founded more than 50 years ago as a response to Sputnik, the Soviet Union’s cold war satellite coup.

And the research and development of technologies that could lead to a starship, he said, would likely create useful military spinoffs.

“At every step along the way in the space business, the Department of Defense has benefited,” Mr. Neyland said.

In the talks, speakers laid out challenges that, while herculean, did not seem out of the realm of the possible, even without resorting to exotic physics like “Star Trek” warp drives.

Still, the sheer distances are daunting. “The problem of the stars is larger than most people realize,” said James Benford, a physicist who organized sessions on starship propulsion.

Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, an organization of volunteers that has already spent several years on starship designing, gave an analogy. If Earth were in Orlando and the closest star system, Alpha Centauri, were in Los Angeles, then NASA’s two Voyager spacecraft, the most distant manmade objects, have traveled just one mile.

Another way of looking at the challenge is that in 10,000 years, the speed of humans has jumped by a factor of about 10,000, from a stroll (2.6 m.p.h.) to the Apollo astronauts’ return from the Moon (26,000 m.p.h.). Reaching the nearest stars in reasonable time — decades, not centuries — would require a velocity jump of another factor of 10,000.

The first steps, however, are easy to imagine. Even in the 1950s, rocket scientists realized that the current engines — burning kerosene or hydrogen and spewing flames out the nozzle — are the rocket equivalent of gas guzzlers. They designed nuclear engines that use reactors to heat liquid hydrogen into a fast-moving stream of gas. NASA had such engines ready for a hypothetical manned mission to Mars to follow the Moon landings.

Today, the space agency has revived that work, beginning with studies on an ideal fuel for a space reactor, and new nuclear engines could be ready by the end of the decade.

As for radioactivity concerns, the reactors would not be started until they reached space. “Space is a wonderful place to use nuclear power, because it is already radioactive,” said Geoffrey Landis, a scientist at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Ohio (and a science fiction author).

More advanced nuclear engines could use reactors to generate electric fields that accelerated charged ions for the thrust. Then fusion engines — producing energy through the combining of hydrogen atoms — could finally be powerful enough for interstellar travel.

The British Interplanetary Society put together a concept for a fusion-powered starship in the 1970s called Daedalus, extrapolating from known physics and technology. Dr. Obousy’s group, Icarus Interstellar, is revisiting the Daedalus design to see if 30-some years of new technology can produce a better starship.

Daedalus dwarfs the Saturn 5, the rocket that took astronauts to the Moon. “However, it’s no bigger than a Nimitz aircraft carrier,” Dr. Obousy said. “We have the ability to create big things. We just don’t have the ability to launch big things.”

Dr. Benford advocated another approach, harking back to the era of sailing ships. Giant sails on the starship could billow from photons beamed from Earth by lasers or giant antennae. “Here’s a case where we know the physics, and the engineering seems doable,” he said.

By contrast, no one has yet built an energy-producing fusion reactor.

Some of the questions posed at the symposium seemed almost mundane: What kind of lights should a starship have? How do you pack enough spare parts for a 50-year trip when there’s no Home Depot along the way? Other talks ruminated on theological and philosophical questions. “Did Jesus Die for Klingons, Too?” was the title of one.

“Vision without execution is daydreaming,” Mr. Neyland said in his introductory remarks, paraphrasing a Japanese proverb.

“And what we’re trying to inspire with the 100-Year Starship Study is that first step in establishing a bar that’s high enough, with challenges that are hard enough that people will actually go start tackling some of these really hard problems.”

For Dr. Breeden, discussions with other attendees affirmed his underlying idea and calculations, but it seems unlikely that asteroid flinging would be sufficient by itself. Still, it could prove a useful and cost-effective supplement for other propulsions systems.

The $1.1 million study — $1 million from Darpa, $100,000 from NASA — will culminate with the awarding of a $500,000 grant to an organization that will take the torch for further work.

Darpa would then exit the starship business, sidestepping interrogation by Congress during the next budget hearings of why it was spending taxpayer money on science fiction dreams.

“They want to get people thinking about a topic and propagate it very subtly,” said Gregory Benford, a physics professor at the University of California, Irvine, who is also a science fiction author (and the twin brother of James Benford). “They want it out of the budget by early next year.”

Perhaps tellingly, no high-level NASA officials spoke at the symposium other than Pete Worden, director of the Ames Research Center in California, whom Mr. Neyland described as a “co-conspirator” and who is often regarded as a maverick in the space agency.

“If we’re lucky, it will change NASA,” the science-fiction-writing Dr. Benford said of the starship research.

Some speakers said they thought the first goal over the next century should be colonizing the solar system, starting with Mars.

Dr. Obousy, for one, made his preference known in a couplet:

On to the stars!

Cowards shoot for Mars.

Israel Reportedly Considers Pre-Emptive Attack on Iran

From FoxNews: Israel Reportedly Considers Pre-Emptive Attack on Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly trying to rally support for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralize Iran's nuclear ambitions, Sky News reports.

A "narrow majority" of ministers currently oppose the move, which could lead to retaliation.

In response to reports of an effort to gain cabin approval on Netanyahu's proposal, Lieberman said: "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."

Lieberman added that Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.

In response to Netanyahu's proposal, Iran's military chief warned that an Israeli attack on the Islamic nation's nuclear development sites "will inflict heavy damages," according to the Iranian ISNA news agency.

"The U.S. officials know that the Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the U.S. seriously as well as the Zionist regime," said Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of Iran's armed forces.

Israel successfully test-fired on Wednesday a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran. An Israeli defense official told The Associated Press that the military tested a "rocket propulsion system" in an exercise planned long ago. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of security restrictions, and declined to give further information.

Further information about the test was censored by the military. Foreign reports, however, said the military test-fired a long-range Jericho missile -- capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.

Israel considers Iran its most dangerous threat. It cites Tehran's nuclear program, its ballistic missile development, repeated references by the Iranian leader to Israel's destruction and Iran's support for anti-Israel militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran, meanwhile, has said its nuclear program is meant only to produce energy for the oil-rich country. It has blamed Israel for disruptions in its nuclear program, including the mysterious assassinations of a string of Iranian nuclear scientists and a computer virus that wiped out some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges.

Israel has repeatedly said that it hopes economic sanctions will persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Israeli diplomats have been lobbying the international community for tougher sanctions.

Blue Castle Nuclear Project Status Presented at Nuclear Construction Summit

From MarketWatch: Blue Castle Nuclear Project Status Presented at Nuclear Construction Summit
PROVO, UT, Nov 02, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Blue Castle Holdings Inc., an energy infrastructure development company, presented the status of the Blue Castle Nuclear Project at the 2nd Annual Nuclear Construction Summit in Charlotte, NC, on October 25th. The presentation included the progress on its Early Site Permit Application which will be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Construction Summit was attended by electric utility executives, major nuclear developers and companies deploying new nuclear plants.

Tom Retson, Chief Operating Officer of BCH, gave the attendees a close look at the company's current structure, its innovative business and financial strategy, and the status of licensing activities currently underway at the project site near Green River, Utah. He noted that his presentation charts can be viewed at the Company's website.

Mr. Retson described the company's current assets, including the land and water leases essential for plant operation, as well as the milestones achieved over the last five (5) years. He then detailed the company's site characterization activities, including meteorology, geology, hydrology, seismology, demographics and emergency planning. The conference attendees were also shown graphs and pictures of the activities taking place at the project site. The importance of the significant support received from state and local governments for the deployment of the two-unit nuclear power plant was recognized as essential to the project success.

The company's nuclear infrastructure development efforts are aimed at having a fully-licensed, ready to construct nuclear plant site in 2016. After four (4) years of preparation, BCH initiated its licensing activities in January of this year and has completed about 30% of the pre-ESP (Early Site Permit) activities. BCH is expecting to submit a completed ESP application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in early 2013. The Company's expectations of success are based on executing a business model that focuses on the option value of the plant at the conclusion of licensing.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Retson summed up the company's status, "Led by a committed management team, significant value has been added and project risks reduced with every successful activity. We expect to obtain a license for the construction of two nuclear power plants in Green River, on cost and on schedule."

About Blue Castle Holdings
Blue Castle Holdings Inc. (BCH or the Company) is an energy infrastructure development company based in Utah and Colorado. It is presently developing the leading new nuclear plant project site in the Western U.S. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Willow Creek LLC (WC), the Company is also engaged in the construction, replacement and repair of natural gas, crude oil pipelines and fuel storage facilities for its customers located in Intermountain West.

More information about Blue Castle Holdings can be found at: www.bluecastleproject.com

San Onofre nuclear plant in California returns to normal after ammonia leak triggers alert

From the Washington Post: San Onofre nuclear plant in California returns to normal after ammonia leak triggers alert
IRVINE, Calif. — Officials at a Southern California nuclear plant searched for the cause of a non-radioactive ammonia leak that triggered an unusual emergency alert and precautionary evacuation of some workers before it was contained.

Officials stressed there was never any danger to the public.

Workers stopped the leak by 5 p.m. Tuesday, about two hours after it was detected in a storage tank in the water purification system of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station’s Unit 3, said Todd Adler, the plant’s engineering manager.

The emergency alert was required because fumes could prevent access to certain areas of the plant, Adler told reporters at a media information center in Irvine, Calif.

The alert, the second lowest of four federal classifications for emergencies at commercial nuclear power plants, was canceled at 6:07 p.m. and evacuated workers were allowed to return.

“It’s a chemical spill that could happen at any industrial facility,” Adler said.

The leak was in the non-nuclear section of the plant, which is operated by Southern California Edison. No radioactive material was released, no injuries were reported and there was no danger to the public, the company said.

Approximately 25 gallons of leaked ammonia were collected in a basin underneath the tank that was designed for that purpose, Edison spokeswoman Lauren Bartlett said.

Exposure to high levels of ammonia can cause irritation, serious burns, lung damage, and even death.

It is used at the plant to treat water that is turned into steam, which runs the turbines that produce electricity. The treated water also is used to remove heat from the reactor’s cooling system.

The leak did not affect electricity production at the plant, and other units remained fully operational, Adler said.

The plant is located about 45 miles north of San Diego, just south of San Clemente, and is jointly owned by Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and the city of Riverside.

While not dangerous for the public or plant workers, an emergency alert at the power plant is an unusual occurrence.

“This is not normal,” Edison spokesman Chris Abel said. “The last time we had one (alert) declared was May 1999, because of a suspected pipe bomb on the freeway.”

In July, an “unusual event” was declared at the nuclear plant when one of several redundant security systems used to monitor the grounds stopped working, utility officials said. The system was restored within 45 minutes.

Japan's Fukushima reactor may have new problem

From CBS News: November 2, 2011: Japan's Fukushima reactor may have new problem
(AP)

TOKYO - Radioactive particles associated with nuclear fission have been detected at Japan's tsunami-damaged atomic power plant, officials said Wednesday, suggesting one of its reactors could have a new problem.

The fresh concerns at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility came as a reactor in southern Japan was restarted and brought back online, marking a first since the March 11 disaster created an outcry over the safety of Japan's nuclear power sites.

Utility officials said gas from inside the Fukushima plant's No. 2 reactor indicated the presence of radioactive xenon, which could be the byproduct of unexpected nuclear fission. Boric acid was injected through a cooling pipe as a precaution because it can counteract nuclear reactions.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO, said there was no rise in the reactor's temperature or pressure. The company said the radioactive materials had not reached the point when nuclear reactions are self-sustaining and the detection of the xenon would have no major impact on workers' efforts to keep the reactor cool and stable.

Because the half-life of the isotopes detected is short, the xenon was likely created recently. But officials said the level was so low that further tests would be required to confirm the measurements were not an error.

"We have confirmed that the reactor is stable and we don't believe this will have any impact on our future work," said TEPCO spokesman Osamu Yokokura. He said no radiation leaks outside the plant were detected.

Hiroyuki Imari, a spokesman with the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency, said the detection of the gas was not believed to indicate a major problem, but its cause was being investigated.

The plant is the site of the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. A 12-mile exclusion zone has been in effect since the earthquake and tsunami crippled the facility northeast of Tokyo, sending three of its reactors into meltdowns, touching off fires and triggering several explosions.

TEPCO had reported significant progress toward stabilizing the facility, saying that it has essentially reached a "cold shutdown," meaning the temperatures at the reactors are constant and controlled.

Even so, a Japanese government panel says it will take at least 30 years to safely decommission the facility.

The Fukushima disaster has severely impacted Japan's nuclear power supply.

Forty-three of Japan's 54 reactors are now suspended for inspections or mechanical troubles and public opposition to restarting them since the disaster has cast doubts on the nation's overall nuclear future.

Before the tsunami, Japan relied on nuclear power for about one-third of its electricity. If power companies cannot win local approval, which is required to restart reactors shut down for glitches or inspections, all of Japan's plants could be offline by next May.

But, in a first since the disaster, a nuclear reactor in southern Japan has resumed operation after a monthlong shutdown for a technical problem. A reactor in Hokkaido, northern Japan, was brought back online in August, but it had not been completely shut down and was out of commercial service only for a regular inspection.

The Kyushu Electric Power Co. says No. 4 reactor at the Genkai nuclear power plant in southern Japan restarted late Tuesday and was generating electricity Wednesday. It automatically shut down Oct. 4 following an abnormality in a steam condenser, but that didn't cause any radiation leaks or injuries.

The reactor will be closed again in January for routine inspections.

Faster than light particles? Not so fast, some say

From Science@MSNBC.com: Faster than light particles? Not so fast, some say
By Natalie Wolchover
OurAmazingPlanet
updated 10/19/2011 8:57:14 PM ET 2011-10-20T00:57:14

* Print
* Font:
* +
* -

Three weeks ago, a group of Italian scientists announced that they had measured objects moving faster than light, violating the fundamental laws of physics. Since then, their work has been met by a barrage of criticism. Physicists claim to have found flaws in the group's method of recording the speed of the neutrinos, and they say that correcting for these flaws slows the neutrinos to less astonishing speeds.

The researchers who conducted the OPERA experiment (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tracking Apparatus) stand by their work, which found neutrinos to be traveling from Switzerland to Italy at 1.000025 times the speed of light.

They invited the rest of the scientific community to scrutinize their startling finding, and that is exactly what has happened — a classic example of science in action, shouldering its way toward a consensus one way or the other on a controversial topic.

The current debate includes a series of exchanges between the OPERA scientists and Ronald van Elburg of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

In a paper posted to the physics pre-print website arXiv.org, van Elburg argues that the Italian scientists failed to account for the fact that the GPS satellite they used as their timekeeping device is moving. If they had corrected for the motion of the satellite as Einstein's theory of special relativity requires, they would not have measured the neutrinos traveling at a superluminal speed, van Elburg asserts.

The OPERA scientists used the clock on a GPS satellite to time the departure of neutrinos from CERN, Europe's high-energy physics lab in Geneva, and the arrival of the neutrinos at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory near Rome, about 451 miles away.

Famously, they found that neutrinos arrived at Gran Sasso approximately 60 nanoseconds before a light beam would have.

But their timekeeping was flawed, van Elburg says, because the GPS clock was moving along its orbit from west to east above CERN and Gran Sasso, roughly parallel to the west-east line between them, and special relativity shows that this motion of the clock ever-so-slightly changes the distance between it and each of the two ground locations. When radio signals from the GPS are detected and recorded at each location to mark the neutrino departure and arrival times, the OPERA scientists needed to subtract the time it took for the signals to travel that distance. Van Elburg said they weren’t using the right measure of the distance, because they weren't considering the distance-shortening effect of the GPS clock's motion.

If they had applied the right correction to the neutrino departure time at CERN, the OPERA scientists would have recorded it as being 32 nanoseconds earlier, van Elburg said. Similarly, they would have calculated the neutrino arrival time at Gran Sasso as being 32 nanoseconds later. Adding up these changes, the neutrinos' travel time was actually 64 nanoseconds longer than the scientists thought it was, van Elburg said, making the particles 4 nanoseconds slower than light.

OPERA responded to van Elburg's accusation. "The author [van Elburg] is not really taking into account special relativity (SR), but he is trying to compose the speed of the satellite with the speed of the radio waves, which makes no sense in SR," spokesman Pasquale Migliozzi told Life's Little Mysteries. "Composing speeds" is a special way of adding them together in special relativity.

Van Elburg countered that Migliozzi has not correctly understood his argument. "I am not composing velocities but adding two distances in a single reference frame," Van Elburg said. A reference frame can be thought of as the point of view of a moving object — in this case, the GPS satellite.

Migliozzi also asserted, "The author does not know that relativistic effects are accounted for in the GPS system." To this, van Elburg said he is checking his facts and will follow up with additional details soon.

Stay tuned. The fate of Einstein's theory of relativity — and indeed, most of modern physics —hangs in the balance.