Abd, I do not have the time to devote to this important topic tonight, and will address the points in separate postings later, but first and because ... apparently ... either you do not understand the situation as well as I had imagined earlier, since you are wavering on many issues now - or else we are having semantic problems - let's clear up a few important semantic things first, and then determine who is, or isn't, paying attention at the end.
> Jones, you aren't paying attention. Please do. "Carbon fission" isn't postulated as part of the reaction, nor are neutrons or tritium postulated as having anything to do with the primary reaction. Wow, that conclusion is most perplexing - that tritium is not important. You must be looking at a different "primary reaction". I am interested in only the *triple tracks* for now. That is the "primary reaction" for me in this thread. These tracks are not possible IMHO without carbon fission (three alpha reaction) and that is also in the opinion of the authors of the paper. You seem to believe otherwise. What are you considering to be the "primary reaction" if other than this? But if triple tracks is also the 'primary' issue for you, then how are they possible without the three alpha reaction, and especially with tritium as a predecessor? (except "random overlap" which the authors effectively rule out). > The carbon fission they mention is not a rare reaction, it is a relatively common one when energetic neutrons are present... This is wrong. It is a a rare reaction if you consider the likelihood of any fast neutron accomplishing it or not, within the CR-39 layer. But let's put down some guidelines about "rarity". First - let's begin with any fast neutron > ~7 MeV, as the author's mention this value range several times. What other source for these than D+T fusion do you imagine there to be in this situation? Please list the reactions and the value of neutron energy. Secondly, the issue of rarity. For every x-number of fast neutrons created, how many (triple alpha) carbon fissions from that number of neutrons push it into your category of "relatively common" ? one in ten? one in a hundred ? one in a thousand ? Please try to be roughly precise within a few orders of magnitude ;-) ... close enough for government work, as they say. Hey what the heck, I'll toss out a number for starters: my definition of "rare" in this situation would be less than one triple alpha reaction per every 10,000 fast neutrons created. And BTW - I do believe that tritium is an absolute necessity for fast neutrons as we are defining them (>7 MeV). What is your definition for "relatively common" ? We can take it from there in steps, and if nothing else, I will try to walk you through it step by step - since you seem to be so impressed with the apparent lack of criticism from the mainstream. Selective reading, perhaps. I may borrow some thoughts from skeptics who I know, even though I am basically a strong believer in LENR, but obviously not in the author's attribution of triple tracks to a rare reaction which demands an even rarer predecessor event (tritium). Cheers, Jones
