[Vo]:Comments on limits on energetic particles in F-P effect experiments.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

A remarkable article appeared recently:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010HagelsteinP-ConstraintsOnECP.pdf
Constraints on energetic particles in the 
Fleischmann–Pons experiment, Peter L. Hagelstein, 
Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-009-0644-4.

Remarkable in the light of recent material from Steve Krivit, is this:

In a nuclear reaction in which energy is produced, we
would expect that the reaction energy would appear as
kinetic energy of the products. Consequently, if the energy
in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment were due to an
unknown nuclear reaction, then it should have been
possible to tell from the observations of the energetic
products. The absence of commensurate neutrons indicates
that the known deuteron–deuteron reaction 2H(2H,n)3He is
not responsible. To date, no energetic products in amounts
consistent with the energy produced have been identified.

But Hagelstein is quite clear about the basic reaction:

There are different conclusions which might be drawn
from this. One possibility is to assert that if no commensurate
energetic particles are present, then no nuclear
reactions occur. This has been the point of view of most
of the physics community since 1989 and suggests that the
thermal effect are due to measurement error or an artifact.
This point of view is supported by one of the foundations of
nuclear physics, which holds that energetic reaction
products are a necessary consequence of energy and
momentum conservation.

However, the great many subsequent observations
of excess heat in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment
(McKubre et al. 1994; Storms 2007) argue for a different
conclusion. In addition, 4He has been observed in the gas
phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced
(Miles et al. 1993, 1994; Miles 2004; Hagelstein et al.
2005). The latter observation was unexpected and remains
even now an astonishing result. Such a large amount of
excess energy produced with commensurate 4He as a
product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical
process. Although there is general agreement on the part
of those working on the problem that this is the case, there
is much less agreement as to what specific process is
responsible.

The conclusion from Hagelstein's analysis:

The basic conclusion is that as a reaction
product, the alpha particle must be born with an energy less
than 6.3 to 20.3 keV in order to be consistent with the
absence of neutrons between 0.008 and 0.8 n/J as measured
in Fleischmann–Pons experiments where excess heat is
produced. Measurements of 4He correlated with energy
production in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment suggest that
the reaction energy is 24 MeV per helium atom produced. If
so, then the experimental results are consistent with the alpha
particle having less than 0.1% of the reaction energy.

We are familiar with the reaction energy appearing as
kinetic energy of the products in nuclear reactions, which is
a consequence of energy and momentum conservation in
the equivalent vacuum version of the nuclear system.
Although we have not yet learned what the reaction
mechanism directly from Fleischmann–Pons experiments,
based on the discussion above, we can say that only a small
fraction of the reaction energy can be present in the alpha
particle at the end of the reaction. Efforts to account for
excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based
on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be
successful in light of the upper limits discussed here.

The issue for a theory involving a fusion 
intermediary of Be-8, i.e. Takahashi's 
Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, would be 
what energies of alphas would be expected. As I 
recall, the minimum would be about 90 KeV. While 
that is higher than the upper limit Hagelstein 
finds, it remains possible for there to be a fit, 
perhaps. (The energy would be the decay energy of the ground state of Be-8.)

In any case, this theoretical analysis, based on 
experimental data and inferences, emphasizes for 
me one thing: we don't know what's happening in 
the lattice. As Storms has noted, there is no 
theory that accounts for all the observations. 
I've noted that TSC theory does account for a 
great deal, but it would seem to predict more 
radiation than is seen. That there are nuclear 
reactions taking place is undeniable, because of 
the helium production correlated with heat (and, 
as well, radiation and other evidence, that is 
nevertheless too low to be a major factor in the 
reaction). It's fusion, it must be, because of 
the nucleosynthesis of helium from deuterium, but 
an unknown and unidentified form of fusion.

Perhaps one of the extant theories is telling the 
story, but incompletely. Or perhaps it's Something Completely Different.

It's an exciting time.

By the way, for random readers of this, sometimes 
those inclined to knee-jerk skepticism notice 
that Naturwissenschaften is supposedly a Life 
Sciences journal. That's an accident of how 
Springer-Verlag categorizes this venerable 
publication. It's a cross-disciplinary journal, 
and has access to the best review expertise 
possible, perhaps Jed might comment on that. When 
I looked at impact factor, for cross-disciplinary 
journals, NW was right next to Scientific 
American. This publication, like a series of such 
recently, is very good news for cold fusion, in 
the process of coming out of the cold.

Notice that the F-P effect itself, in this paper, 
is not really treated as controversial. That is 
the real scientific consensus at this point, 
formal opposition to it has practically vanished. 
Hagelstein mentions the controversy, and the 
"point of view of most of the physics community 
since 1989," but the F-P effect isn't actually 
physics. It is chemistry and heat measurement. 
What's been happening is that something has been 
discovered and the chemists say, this isn't 
chemistry, and they are experts on chemistry. The 
physicists are experts on physics, and say, this 
can't be physics, we've seen nothing like it.

So it's new chemistry or new physics, or maybe 
it's some kind of something else. Telekinesis? 
The incredible power of wishful thinking? I don't 
think so. Whatever it is, I think we should try to find out.

It's too bad that in 1989 the skeptics didn't 
actually try to find out what was going on, with 
conclusive experimental work. They found a few 
reasons to doubt the initial results, and used 
that as an excuse to dump the whole shebang, 
going back to their phenomenally expensive hot 
fusion work, employing hordes of partice 
physicists, blanket rejecting the continued work 
by hundreds of knowledgeable and competent 
scientists all over the world, pointing to a few 
occasional pieces of sloppy work with "See! Look 
what crap they are producing!" They'd complain 
about all the things not done by researchers, but 
opposed and blocked the funding that it would 
have taken to do all these things. They 
complained about lack of peer-reviewed 
publications in major journals, while cheering 
the policies of those journals to refuse all articles on the topic.

And they sat on and refused to reconsider 
personal assumptions that might have been true, 
briefly, in 1989, but that became false, rapidly 
and amply, after that. "Never reproduced!" "The 
more careful and accurate the measurements, the 
less the effect!" "No ash!" and on and on.