On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero > believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute > putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be > taken at face value. > You forced me. :) Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 26 * background. Notoya et al., "Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes," Fusion Technology, 26,179, 1994; "Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel," Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 205, 1994. Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 10-100 * background. Notoya, "Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel," in the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993. Ni + K2CO3 + D2O, H2O: tritium 339 * background. Srinivasan et al., "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," in the proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1992. Ni + Li2CO3 + H2O: tritium 145 * background. Srinivasan et al., op cit. Please confirm either that these references do not meet your evidentiary standards or that the Ni-H2O electrolytic system is different in some basic way from the Ni-H2 system when considering the question of radiation. Eric
