I uploaded an early paper by Claytor:

Claytor, T.N., et al. *Tritium and neutron measurements of a solid state
cell*. in *NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Materials*.
1989. Washington, DC.



A solid state "cold fusion" cell was constructed to test for
nonequilibrium D-D fusion in a solid. The stimulus for the design was the
hypothesis that the electrochemical surface layer in the Pons -Fleischmann
cell could be replaced with a metal- insulator-semiconductor (MIS) barrier.
Cells were constructed of alternating layers of palladium and silicon
powders pressed into a ceramic form and exposed to deuterium gas at 110
psia , resulting in a D/Pd ratio of 0.7. Pulses of current were passed
through the cells to populate nonequilibrium states at the MIS barriers.
One cell showed neutron activity and had a large amount of tritium. Other
cells have produced tritium at a low rate consistent with neutron emission
at or below the threshold of observability. The branching ratio for n/p was
about 3 x 10^-9 in all the experiments where a substantial amount of
tritium has been found.

One of the cells produced a substantial amount of tritium:

. . . [T]ritium analysis showed that cell 2 had 1300 times the fill gas
concentration of tritium, amounting to 3.5 x 10^15 atoms of tritium. This
level, although substantially above background, is equivalent to only 65

The NSF/EPRI Workshop is described here:


These experiments are also described here:


Several other experiments produced large amounts of tritium, such as
Bockris, Storms and Will. See:


Skeptics ignore the tritium because it is compelling proof that cold fusion
is a nuclear reaction. They pretend that heat is not compelling, even
though it exceeds the limits of chemistry thousands of times over. They
want to claim that cold fusion does not produce clear evidence of a nuclear
reaction, even though anyone can see that it does. They mean it does not
produce the evidence *they want to see.* They are looking for proof that
cold fusion is actually plasma fusion, and it produces a deadly flux of
neutrons and no significant heat. They want that because it fits
their theories and -- more importantly -- because it means cold fusion has
no practical use, and does not threaten plasma fusion funding. Messinger
correctly described the infuriating, know-nothing attitude of the skeptics
at ARPA-E and elsewhere:

The hypothesis is that excess heat is caused by the release of nuclear
binding energy through low-energy nuclear reactions. But, as I have written
before, and ARPA-E stressed in their funding opportunity announcement, such
kind of evidence for LENR is insufficient due to the ambiguous nature of
heat . . .

I have uploaded a number of new papers lately:


Reply via email to