Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Natural Fusion in Earth Hypothesis
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:11:39 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

         COMMENTS ON POSSIBLE NATURAL FUSION IN THE EARTH

In a 23 Dec. posting, Brian Rauchfuss asks:
"BTW, how much hydrogen is in the iron-nickel core of the earth?  Would
we expect the earth to explode due to CF in the nickel (electrical currents due
to the core rotating) soon after it formed?"

It was the hypothesis of natural fusion in the earth that led BYU Profs. Paul
Palmer, G. Jensen, B. Czirr, J. Thorne and myself (and others here) to begin
experimental work on isotopic hydrogen fusion in various solids in May 1986.
(See e.g. books by Close, Peat, Huizenga on "cold fusion.")  Even further back,
Clint Van Siclen and I raised a similar question:  "It is interesting to 
consider whether piezonuclear fusion within the liquid metallic hydrogen core
of Jupiter can account for the excess heat radiated from the planet." (J.
Physics G 12:213, March 1986, submitted June 1985:  "Piezonuclear fusion in
isotopic hydrogen molecules.")

The natural fusion hypothesis was further discussed in our Nature paper in April
1989.  3He is released in abundance from hot spots on the earth's
crust, such as volcanoes.  The prevailing model or paradigm
to account for these observations is that 3He was trapped inside the
earth during its formation, and that this primordial gas is released through
hot spots that tap the mantle.  There are problems with this theory, however.
For example, neon appears to have been outgassed from the earth, presumably 
when it was hot (molten).  Then why was not 3He similarly outgassed? 

Our hypothesis, which challenges the prevailing paradigm, is that at least
some of the observed 3He may be produced in the earth by p-d or d-d fusion
reactions:
     p + d -->  3He + gamma (5.4 MeV)
     d + d -->  3He + neutron
   or      -->  t + p (where the triton decays to 3He with a 12.4 yr
half-life).

  We also proposed that a critical experiment would be to look for
tritium coming from volcanoes or other hot spots, since tritium would be a
tracer for d-d fusion yet has just a 12.4-year half-life.  Thus, if tritium
were present in magmatic water (as opposed to meteoric water which contains
tritium from H-bomb tests) -- in quantities that could not be accounted for
by n+Li or other conventional reactions -- then this would be evidence for
natural fusion.  (For much more detail, see the original 1989 Nature paper,
and S.E. Jones et al., J. Fusion Energy Dec. 1990.)  Any primordial tritium
would have decayed away by now.  

Thus, our hypothesis of natural fusion in the earth has motivated searches
for tritium from volcanoes.  The BYU group has been in close contact with
geologists Fraser Goff of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Gary McMurtry
of the U. of Hawaii who have conducted just such a search.
They have looked for tritium in magmatic water (collected
from high-temperature fumaroles) of Kilauea and Mt.St. Helens volcanoes.  
Their invited paper to the 1992 Spring Meeting of the American Geophysical
Union is titled:  "Anomalous Deuterium and Tritium in Magmatic Water from
Kilauea and Mount St. Helens:  Implications for Deep Earth Processes."  The
oral paper states (quoting from their abstract):
"The delta-D, delta-18Oxygen and 3H contents of meteoric waters, fumarole
condensates, and volcanic rocks at Mt. St. Helens and Kilauea (Pu'u O'o) 
volcanoes are used to define the delta-D and 3H values of primary magmatic
water. The results show that the ... 3H of magmatic water at both volcanoes
is ~ 3 T.U.  ... [Conventional explanations are discussed.]  In the absence
of simple conventional explanations, the 3H in these magmatic waters may
result from natural fusion in the earth.  If so, the short (12.5 yr) half-
life of this isotope has implications for the depth and magnitude of this
process, as well as for magmagenesis, plume ascent rates, and global heat
and He budgets."        (Frank Close please take careful note.)

More recently, these geologists have found tritium in the Picaya volcano in
central America, and they will soon take samples at Galeras in Columbia.  So
our humble hypothesis (not as earth-shaking as that of P/F, or is it?) has
led to novel experimental searches.  In this sense, our hypothesis is USEFUL to
science, whatever the ultimate outcome of this research.

An aside esp. for Jed Rothwell:  note the process of science here.  We do not
discard earlier experimental observations, such as release of 3He from earth's
hotspots.  Rather, we build on sound existing data, suggesting that tritium
may also be released.
At the same time, we strongly challenge the popular paradigm that
the 3He was trapped during the earth's formation and is being released now.
We hypothesize that 3He is PRODUCED (along with heat and
tritium) by natural fusion in the earth, contemporaneously.  This may add to
3He and heat from other sources.
We proposed an experimentum crucis to discern between the older model (actually
only about 15 years old) and our new hypothesis of natural fusion in the earth:
Is tritium found in the earth's magma?  Scientists are looking now, and at
least some are finding anomalous tritium.  This adds to our data base, and
may ultimately re-shape our models regarding the earth (and fusion, too).

Let's contrast this "path of logical science" (with apologies to Douglas
Morrison who speaks of "pathological science") with recent postings by Jed:

"One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing database,
no matter how certain or long established it may be. ...Okay, a million,
million previous experiments showed that E=mc2.  So what?  Every single one of
them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal lattices under electro-
lysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."  (J. Rothwell posting "Brilliant as
usual, wrong as always," 21 Dec. 1992).  I think Jed got a bit carried away
here, but will let the reader decide between his approach and mine.

Finally, I return to B. Rauchfuss's question about the amount of hydrogen
in the iron-nickel core of the earth, which is clearly relevant to the BYU
hypothesis of natural fusion.  In 1990, I presented a colloquium on this
hypothesis at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., and spoke to
geologists Russell Hemley and H.K. Mao who do work with diamond-anvil cells.
Since then, they have performed studies of iron hydrides under high pressures.
They conclude:  "If we assume core temperatures of 4000 to 6000 K and values
for the thermal expansion coefficient assumed for iron under these conditions
(8 X 10 -6 to 16 X 10 -6 K-1), we find that a mole fraction of iron hydride
in the core ranging from 40 to 95% can be consistent with the measured core
density.  The effect of other light elements and the amount of hydrogen
retained in Earth following accretion needs to be examined.  Our results
show that a large hydrogen component of the core is compatible with
current seismological data."  (Badding, Hemley and Mao, Science 253:421-424,
26 July 1991.)  

Thus, recent experiments point to much larger hydrogen (and
concomitant deuterium) concentrations than were previously thought to exist
in the earth's core.  Interesting, yes?

Thanks, Brian for asking an intriguing question.  You see, there are scientists
who are very interested in finding the answer.  (Even if a commercial
power reactor does not result.)

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
    
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion