Horace Heffner wrote:
> If this experiment is repeatable then this of utmost significance. How > could this be overlooked? Perhaps there was no follow-up, or the results > could not be repeated? It wasn't overlooked! It was repeated. Will's people got better and better at it, as did Bockris. Ed and Carol Storms got very significant tritium results, although I do not think they got a chance to improve their technique much. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEelectrolyt.pdf Tom Claytor, also at LANL, got great tritium results with spark discharge. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumprob.pdf These experiments stopped is because opponents ignored the results and closed down the NCFI, Bockris retired, and others were never funded properly. This is old news. I am a little surprised that people here are unaware of the fact that cold fusion produces tritium, and this has been proved decisively hundreds of times. (Bockris used to run 100 cells at a time, and as I recall, sometimes 30 to 50 would produce tritium.) There is absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, and there is also no doubt that this is definitive proof of a nuclear reaction. Where do you people get your information from, anyway, Wikipedia? <trap drum sound: szzz, boom bah!> There is no need to speculate about why this research has not been funded, or why it has not been reported in the pages of the Washington Post or Sci. Am. It has nothing to do with the fact that tritium is used in fusion bombs. The reason is prosaic, and well known to me and others. This information is not published and it is erased from Wikipedia and elsewhere because if it were to become generally known, Robert Park, the editors at Sci. Am. and Nature, and the skeptics at the DoE and APS would all look like idiots. They understand as well as you do that this is proof of a nuclear reaction! - Jed
