On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 24 Mar 2010
13:21:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
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 Fleischmann–Pons
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.
.
.
.
.
.
I think this is a misunderstanding of what the 20.3 keV represents.
It does not represent the Q of the reaction. It represents an
(experimental) upper limit on the kinetic energy the 4He obtains from
the reaction. This is not at all a surprising result if, as I and
various others have predicted, the D+D -> 4He branch produces most of
its enthalpy in the form of low energy alphas with the possibility
one or two low energy betas as well.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.
[snip]
I haven't read Hagelstein's paper, but it seems to me that one must
base any
such analysis on individual experiments where both He and heat are
measured
concurrently and as precisely as possible. Consider the possibility
that Hydrino
formation is providing a large proportion of the heat. That would
be heat way
beyond normal chemistry, yet yield no ionizing radiation. Of course
some of the
Deuterinos would undergo fusion, possibly resulting in He4.
Therefore it is
imperative that both He4 and heat be measured in the same
experiment, and that
conclusions not be drawn from one set of measurements taken from
one experiment,
and another set from another experiment.
BTW I find the whole idea of using the volume of the cathode to
compare energy
densities "proving" some form of fusion to be silly. Clearly the
volume of
electrolyte is of far more consequence, given that it is this which
contains the
putative fuel anyway.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
