I think the difference in tritium production is electrical discharge. Degenerate electrons might open some path or channel to the production of tritium. Remember that there is always some Deuterium in water. Electrolysis might be the path to produce tritium.
Thermacore – no Electrolysis – no tritium is found. Mills – Electrolysis – tritium is found. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > 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**** > > ** ** >
