Sorry, but I find none of these reports believable – especially in light of the fact that a major High-Tech company, Thermacore, ran Ni + K2CO3 cells continuously for over on year – with over a hundred thousand watt-hours of net thermal gain, and with top notch radiation detection equipment - and yet they never reported 3H.
Did they hold back that information? I suspect BLP has even more run time with Ni + K2CO3 … are they hiding the results? As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. I do not know anything about Notoya. But neither of them has the credibility of the Thermacore team, and they were operating under DARPA contracts. The cost of tritium - which the USA is willing to pay to keep its weapons functional - is in the neighborhood of $100,000 gram, and our yearly expenditure is in between $1-2 billions (based on the Savannah River reports and the UCLA study). A few countries who want to become players in the Arms race, will pay much more. Do you give up on a simple process for making it - with this kind of economic incentive? True, maybe you do go underground with it, but there is no evidence of that either, at least not that I am aware of. OTOH – it does explain why Thermacore could have been persuaded to “get outta town” with the technology - by their largest customer. And also why India might want to encourage others to disavow the possibility. Come to think of it, if I were a conspiracy nut, I would actually take another closer look at that scenario ... Jones From: Eric Walker 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
