I wrote:
Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis of
> something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to your
> conclusion of slow helium formation.
>
I should be more specific. What I'm hoping to do is come up with a
plausible case that we have not sufficiently established that the levels of
prompt alphas are incommensurate 4He formation; I'm optimistic that this
might be possible. If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside),
I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives:
1. There is 4He formation with little kinetic energy.
1. There is 4He formation in which 24 MeV is released all at once, but
diffusely, across the whole lattice (along the lines of Hagelstein's
approach)
2. There is 4He formation, but it occurs slowly over time (along the
lines of your approach, Ed)
2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman
suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it is not
4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling.
3. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman
suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a chemical
reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF.
I'm not a big fan of (3), nor of (1)(1) or (1)(2). I'm really hoping to
find that there have been some mistaken assumptions about what a large flux
of prompt alphas would look like hidden behind a reactor housing or the
wall of a glass beaker.
Eric
