But that requires very heavy nucleus, like thorium or uranium. And it would present a similar problem to explain the presence beginning with tritium, since alpha emitters in general have very long decay times, at least for the purpose of the experiment. Just check the list of half lives of the atoms present in the list present in the website you listed:
235U, 238U, 231Th, 208Po, 258Fm100, 256Fm100, 254Fm100, 254Cf98, 252Fm100 and 250Cm96 2012/2/19 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> > no, as they say in the slide, > it is alpha disintegration, that follow the rythm of beta decay. > It is their explanation, and it seems standard physic (even if there is a > needed trick either with "energetic state" or "pauli-excluded beta") > > I could find those exambles cited beside the slides of Larsen > > http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v48/i1/p429_1 > http://www.nucleonica.net/wiki/index.php?title=Beta_delayed_processes > > http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/decaytype.html > > > > > 2012/2/20 Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> > >> Beta delayed? Don't you mean beta "speed up"? In order to get to He4, >> tritium decay should be accelerated, from a half life of 10years to >> something of miliseconds. >> >> >> 2012/2/19 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> this decay is well known, so no new physics involved... >>> >>> it can be considered by classic Q physic... now is it true... >>> >>> nb: if on want to make his own opinion, one should read the dozen of key >>> slides (and papers if more courage) >>> start with the index: >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcindex-to-concepts-experiments-and-documents-september-14-2009 >>> and follow the links >>> the first to read IMHo is >>> >>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewjune-25-2009 >>> >>> >>> W-L theory have the characteristic to use many observed phenomenon, and >>> assemble them so they can explain LENR. >>> >>> another key point is that larsen have mane very good documents for >>> evangelization. >>> >>> for that 2 facts, i've never found another more convincing theory. >>> hints welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thus, the constant attacks of Krivit on MacKubre's M4 experiment. >>>>> That experiment rules out, completely, WL theory. >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand Krivit's motivation for doing this, but I had the >>>> impression that W&L have a more sophisticated explanation. I have not >>>> looked closely at their work. If they say the helium data must be a mistake >>>> they are clearly wrong. >>>> >>>> It is one thing to claim the helium data is a mistake. It is quite >>>> another to claim it is fraud, as Krivit does. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> [email protected] >> >> > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
