On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic
>> energy is approx. 100  times that of the incoming particles?
>>
>> Can it be compared with known collisions?
>>
>
> It was closer to 15,000 times the original energy (5,000,000 eV / 350 eV),
> after having traversed ~1 um of titanium (or, possibly, some daughter
> particle resulting from a chain reaction of some kind that occurred closer
> to the exiting side of the foil).  The presence of the foil complicates
> things, because it's not clear how far the daughter had to travel through
> it.  The longer it had to travel, the more it would slow down, I think,
> especially if it was not initially aligned along an open pathway in the
> crystal structure.
>
>
Thanks for the clarification.  I knew it was large, but since I couldn't
immediately recall the figures I deliberately under estimated.


> The authors speculated that the mystery particle was tritium on the basis
> of the energy difference in the energy peak when the 200 V detecter bias
> was turned off (silicon surface-barrier detector spectra respond to changes
> in voltage, apparently).  The authors did not offer a possible reaction.
>
> Another possibility apart from a nuclear reaction was that background
> radiation was mistakenly associated with the incoming beam collisions.
>  They only saw events in four of nine experiments, and the particles could
> have been cosmic rays or something similar.  Also interesting is the fact
> that there was an earlier experiment by a group in Germany with a very
> similar setup that I just read about, and they saw nothing that could not
> be explained by normal dd reaction cross sections.  But I don't think they
> saw anything above noise in the 300 eV range, and their foils were 3 um
> thick.
>



Assuming it is a real anomaly, it suggests a memory effect whereby each
incoming particle serves to nudge the nuclei closer together.

Harry

>
>
> Eric
>
>

Reply via email to