Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Frank Close/Fusion in Earth
From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:00:24 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9301041335.AA01375@suntan.Tandem.com>, Frank Close 
<FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> Steve Jones posts on fusion in the Earth and asks me to take note of a point
> he makes. Steve, it will be several days before I have time to digest your
> comments which I have so far only read here at my terminal (my NY resolution
> is to do CN-F only at weekends - and I am already violating it) but can
> you clarify which point? Is it in connection with the appendix in THTH
> ``Fusion does not give the Earth's Heat" or is this some new information
>  about gas emissions that you are emphasising?
> 
Primarily the latter.  That is, I hope people will take seriously the obser-
vations of tritium in magmatic waters of three separate volcanoes by the
Los Alamos Nat. Lab./U. Hawaii team.  These scientists were partially
supported via the grant to BYU to study "cold fusion" from the 
U.S. Dept. of Energy (1990-1991).  (Some seem to prefer to forget that the
DOE ever supported this work here.  But they did!)
BYU is directly supporting Prof. McMurtry (Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics)
in the team's trip to Galeras volcano in Colombia So. America this month.

They carefully differentiate between magmatic and meteoric (rain) waters
using isotope ratios for 18oxygen/16oxygen and d/p.  Furthermore, they have
carefully and I think thoroughly explored the possibility that tritium could
originate from prosaic reactions such as n(6Li,t)alpha  -- and have ruled
these out.  Bart Czirr and I checked this one in particular, using known amounts
of Li and U in Kilaeua and found that less than 1% of the observed tritium
could be accounted for in this way. 

The earth's heat can be accounted for in other ways than fusion, I think
(agreeing with Frank's treatment on this in THTH).  But tritium detection
coupled with older observations of 3He emissions from volcanos may just
lead to interesting new science.  Once more we have an example of the
possibility of a discovery of a new phenomenon (natural fusion in the earth
and planets) without implying that commercial heat generation may follow.
(Frank's discussion of P/F's fears that our discussion of "excess heat" 
production in the earth/planets could interfere with their patents is
fascinating.  See his book, THTH!  Note that my paper with Clint Van Siclen
(written in 1985)
on the possibility of cold or piezonuclear fusion inside Jupiter includes 
the term "excess heat."  J. Phys. G12: 213-221 (1986). )

Frankly, I hope to prepare readers of the net to look for the paper of these
colleagues -- I'll let you know where it will be published should it be
accepted.  (Oral talks have already been given in geology meetings, generating
considerable interest and controversy Prof. McMurtry tells me.)

Another reader asked me privately whether the active volcano in Antartica,
Mt. Erebus, might be tested using the publicized robot for the presence
of tritium.  Erebus
volcano is actually a good place to look, since very little tritium remains
from H-bomb testing way down there in the So. Hemisphere, I understand.
I do not know whether the robot will get samples which could be tested for
tritium content.  However, Prof. McMurtry and team have applied for permission
to take samples there; so far, their request has been denied.

They would also like to acquire samples from underwater volcanoes, where the
ambient tritium in deep seawater is essentially zero.

These guys are understandably excited about their observations of tritium in
volcanoes.  They have waited to analyze results from THREE different volcanoes
before trying to publish.  I'm excited too.  I just hope they can publish
their findings in a major journal.

Respectfully,
Steve
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion