I should credit Eric Walker's persistence, as well, in this mini "tritium revival" - especially in digging up old papers from the early nineties where the isotope is mentioned.
There are many other papers as well, some of them not available on
LENR/CANR. Fusion Technology is a good resource for good papers from this
era which are not easily available otherwise.
In retrospect, this is the one major point that should have been hammered
into the skeptical mentality: you cannot explain away LENR unless you can
explain away the tritium - even if it only occurs in a few instances.
Maybe we missed a golden opportunity by failing to emphasize this point ad
nauseum.
Tritium is so extremely rare and unexpected, and its detection is so certain
and reliable - that even its occasional appearance overrides EVERY AND ALL
of the skeptics objections which are mostly all associated with low
reproducibility.
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene
This may be too open-ended and nebulous to present at this
juncture - but the evidence for small amounts of tritium in Ni-H LERN is
substantial. Thanks to Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell from bringing this detail
clearly into focus recently - because for one overriding consideration-
given the rarity of background 3H - this occurrence of it where it should
not be seen ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES THE REALITY OF LENR.
But all of us knew that, and need no reminder... at least on
this forum. Should we attempt to "rub it in" elsewhere?
As mentioned, this is partly a function of being able to
locate and precisely identify extremely small amounts of the isotope - but
that is not a minus... if it were not being made in some quantity, it would
not show up at all.
What are the implications of the following ?
1) Tritium appearance is absolutely not in question in the reaction,
but does not always occur, so what is the key to it being there?
2) No necessity for excess heat to find tritium. In fact many reports
find T with no heat.
3) In some cases, what can be called "anomalous cooling" is seen (as in
Ahern's experiments)
4) When excess heat is clearly present, tritium formation can be
somewhere around 10^5 times too low to account for it. What is the highest
correlation?
5) Claytor sees tritium with lithium, which is easier to explain but
most reports are with potassium carbonate. Why K2CO3 instead of KOH?
6) No public evidence that the rate of tritium production can be
commercialized, even if a price of $1000,000 per gram is guaranteed.
Your input on other implications of this will be duly noted
- and reported in a separate post.
We can pretty much state that the main common denominator
for all of the above is Quantum Mechanics - in the sense of low probability
tunneling.
Which means that QM tunneling has allowed some small amount
of tritium to form but is it new physics? IOW - There is no guarantee that
it is not a new kind of tritium reaction (not necessarily D+D -> T+p).
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
