This was extensively discussed back a few months.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010KrivitS-ACS.pdf
Slide 36 asks a question, "How Did ENEA Get 24 MeV?
He should know the answer. They didn't, and they
didn't claim to. They used the 24 MeV value as a
convenient conversion factor to allow a single
scale to be used to plot energy and helium. It
was an assumption, not a claimed result. It does
add a little meaning to the chart, allowing
comparison of results to the 24 MeV figure, but that's all.
The ENEA results can be used as a minor part of
the body of work that is used, overall, to
establish what Storms calls 25 +/- 5 MeV as an
actual value, but to question how they "got it"
is completely silly. They *used it*. It is the
value predicted if deuterium is the only fuel and
helium is the only product (23.8 MeV), got any
other really interesting conversion factors to
use to plot energy and helium using the same scale?
Really. If someone knows Krivit and is trusted,
they should quietly take him aside. It's embarassing.
As a result of this obsession, New Energy Times
has gone down the tubes. Last year, Krivit spoke
at the ACS Conference. This year, he was simply
in the audience at the press conference, trying
to use the question-and-answer session to make
obscure points that I doubt anyone not familiar
with his agenda understood. Marwan clearly was
uncomfortable, Krivit has been his collaborator
and co-editor for the ACS Sourcebook series.
McKubre was cool and reserved, simply answering a
literal question literally, and not allowing
himself to be baited into a debate.
I think it's possible for Krivit to recover, but
not without beginning to listen. Basic rule for
reporters: listen, and listen carefully. Don't
allow your own agenda to warp what you hear, and
report what you hear accurately, true to source.
When the "meaning" of your "story" outshadows the
accurate reporting, something has gone dreadfully wrong.
A little more on this is with Slide 40. Krivit
reports the fact somewhat correctly, but puts his
own very silly conclusion as the headline:
Never Mind!
24 MeV is Meaningless
For 24 MeV to signify the precise mass-energy
deficit of D-D fusion, there must be
no other nuclear products in the system.
40
D+D .. 4He (<100 KeV) + Heat (~24
MeV) + No Other Nuclear Products
In other words, 24 MeV is not meaningless! If 24
MeV comes to be accurately measured, with the
value being confirmed (it's not easy), there is
an obvious inference: the reaction is one in
which deuterium fuel is converted into helium,
with no other products being expected in large
quantities. However, Krivit is misleading, even
in the "fact," because that conversion may not be
simple d+d fusion, and the best known
counter-hypothesis is Takahashi's Tetrahedral
Symmetric Condensate theory, which isn't d+d
fusion, but rather 4d fusion, resulting in Be-8
which then decays to two helium nuclei.
As well, Krivit converts the accurate "no other
major products" -- not a rigid conclusion,
because there might be other major products which
produce the same Q value -- into the absolute "no
other nuclear products." Thus creating an
appearance of contradiction with transmutation
results, a contradiction he tried to bring out in
his press conference comments.
It's clear: in spite of years of following the
field, in spite of all the discussion and work
he's done, he does not understand the field and
the implications. It's little short of tragic, in
my view. I tried to warn him last year, he blew
it off. It appears that many others have tried as
well. New Energy Times has become little more
than a personal blog, he lost his balance. Can it be recovered?
I hope so. Krivit was kind to me. I owe him this last effort to get through.
And now I notice this: Slide 45.
How Does Hagelstein Explain
Energetic Alphas?
Theoretical Speculations on Upper Limits:
The alpha particle must be born with an
energy less than 20.3 KeV.
(Pay no attention to Lipson et al. 2002 11-16 MeV alphas,
Oriani and Fisher, SPAWAR)
- Hagelstein, Peter L. (Communicated by Edmund
Storms) "Constraints on Energetic
Particles in the FleischmannPons Experiment,"Naturwissenschaften, DOI
10.1007/s00114-009-0644-4, Feb. 9, 2010
That's a very important paper, just published.
Krivit has completely misunderstood it. This is a
review of the theoretical considerations, and
Hagelstein is reporting the result of his
investigations. Look at the title: this paper
isn't pushing some conclusion other than noting a
very difficult problem, one that is fundamental
to the history of the field. If his analysis is
correct, nearly every proposed theory of cold
fusion implies a prediction that is contrary to
experimental result. They would predict energetic
alphas at significantly higher levels and frequency than are actually found.
Hagelstein is writing about the basic reaction
and the preponderance of results. He's not
denying that some reaction branches would produce
energetic alphas, neutrons, etc. He is saying
that to match experimental results, the helium
must be *normally* "born" with less than 20.3
KeV. I don't know the limits, i.e., how
frequently it could happen that higher energy alphas were emitted.
Basically, Hagelstein is saying that we don't know what's going on.
Consider Oriani. We are talking about extremely
low levels of radiation reported. Remember the
original "dead graduate student" skeptical
argument? It went, if deuterium fusion were
taking place, the neutron radiation levels would
have been so high that those working on the
experiment would have died. Later, when helium
was proposed and found to be the product, this
same argument would have applied, except the
radiation would presumably have been gamma radiation.
Hot alphas remain as a possibility, it might
seem, but what Hagelstein has done is to analyze
what would happen to these: it's standard nuclear
physics. He is saying that if they were above the
20 KeV figure, we'd see more radiation and
secondary effects than we do. This is very new
work, and I'm looking forward to analysis of it by experts.
I need to go back and review Takahashi more
carefully. My recollection was that the hot
alphas expected would still have, as a minimum, roughly 90 KeV.
So, then, what happens if excited Be-8, bound to
the crystalline structure, decays? Until it
decays, it would only be hot in terms of nuclear
excitation, not thermally, and it would be losing
that energy rapidly to the lattice by photon
emission (at levels probably not detectable, as
far as what would escape). This could, in fact,
be more like a standard Mossbauer effect, I'd not
be surprised to see that the energy is absorbed
by the lattice. Just maybe. A qualified physicist
I'm not, I just get ideas. What would that mean,
what would happen when the Be-8 symmetrically decays?
