Thanks, I relay. the same continue his story @Alain Coetmeur Tritium contaminates heavy water. Its beta-ray's kinetic energy varies, averaging 5.7 keV - nasty for quantitative trace detection differentials (decay energy residual is in an electron antineutrino). Electrolysis concentrates tritium. Tritium content and neutron detection reports are below research standards. Japan invested $(USD)20 million researching cold fusion 1992 - 1997, finding nothing. Yoshiaki Arata's 2008 claims are not reproducible.
23.8 nanograms D + D fusion is a one gram TNT detonation. National Ignition Facility targets are milligrams of fuel - 84,000 times larger and also crap in action. The densest low average atomic weight targets are (Li-6)D and (Li-6)T, not 17 K frozen DT. Recycle an H-bomb secondary for business models' $(USD)0.25/target, and still fail. Cold fusion "long lasting heat" is engineering nonsense for MW and GW energy production, even it were true. Forget DTO "enhanced" cold fusion. Tritium oxide specific activity is 2634 Ci/g, 21.28 calories/second. It boils itself within seconds. Storage will be interesting, including remarkable oxidative corrosivity from radiolysis products. "*Does modern science discourage creativity?*" It certainly rewards theoretic pandering orthogonal to empirical application. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/06/dinner-with/ "They lacked discipline and protocols." 2013/11/20 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Alain, here are a few comments that might be useful. > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > I've got an answer with claim of artifact... probably an old story. I > imagine that to fool Ed you need more tha recombination ... > > can you comment, and check I did not answer stupidly > > > "Uncle Al <http://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211> said... > > @Alain Coetmeur The uncooperative Pons-Fleischmann exotherm requires > Li-based electrolyte, high current density, thick Pd rods. Li is only > slowly reactive in water. Pd dissolves Li. As with Hg dissolving Na, Pd > dissolving Li is a hugely exothermic Lewis acid-base neutralization. Pd-Li > alloys have *deep* melting point depressions vs. Pd 1552°C mp: 145°C mp > for 12 atom-% Pd, 950°C mp for 75 atomic-% Pd, *J. Less-Common Met.* *55*(1), > 67 (1977). > > > This description is not accurate. Li is not required in the electrolyte, > the Pd can be any shape from wires to foils, and the Li reacts only very > slowly with the surface and diffuses over a distance of a few tens of > microns from the surface. > > > (0) Catalyst in the condenser recombines electrolytic D_2 and O_2 to D_2O. > It occasionally explodes when granules shift to expose fresh surface. This > does not count. > > > The recombination catalyst seldom explodes. > > (1) Li metal electroplates onto the Pd cathode. Most reacts with heavy > water. Some dissolves in the rod's surface, creating a lowering melting > point Pd-Li alloy rind. > (2) Very high current densities have the rind eventually liquefy vs. Li > reaction with water and diffusion inward. > > > The surface does not liquify. A few local melted regions are occasionally > seen, but these are few and widely separated. > > Sudden reaction with bulk rod is the Pons-Fleischmann exotherm having no > neutron, tritium (net 4.03 MeV), or He-3 (net 3.27 MeV) production. > > > No neutrons are detected, tritium is occasionally made, and helium-4 > production appears to be the source of energy. > > (3) About 24 nanograms of D + D fusion is one gram of TNT detonation. How > big is the Pons-Fleischmann boom? > > > The total energy is being compared to the rate of energy production, which > is not correct. The rate of energy production from TNT is huge. The rate > from F-P is small even though the same amount of energy is released. > Consequently, the Pons-Fleischmann cell does not explode. > > Ed > > > 1 gram TNT detonated = 4184 J (one dietary Calorie) > D + D = 3.65 MeV average, 5.848×10^(-13) joules > 0.5 mole D + D, 2.0141 g total = 1.76×10^11 Joules > 1 gram TNT detonated = 23.8 nanograms D + D fusion > > 12:57 PM, November 20, 2013" > > > > > > 2013/11/20 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> > >> Interesting article on Science evolution... >> It resonate with many things (out of LENR) I've noticed recently... >> Mostly Science is dying of conformism... consensus... >> It always have bee conformist, killing dissenters, but today this >> conformism is getting industrialized, administered, funded, , globalized, >> mediatized, with method and rationality. >> >> >> http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2013/11/does-modern-science-discourage.html#1384868525427 >> >> the comments are interesting... >> >> the most funny is that answer: >> "Phillip Helbig <http://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809> >> said... >> *"But if it wouldn't work, what all these publications are about?"* >> >> One can study theology at university, but I don't see this as a proof of >> God's existence. >> >> There is no confirmation of the Pons and Fleischmann result published in >> a serious journal. >> >> Even if your conspiracy theory is true and the establishment boycotts >> cold fusion, why not just set up a power company and sell the energy? >> Because it doesn't work. >> 8:42 AM, November 19, >> 2013<http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/11/does-modern-science-discourage.html?showComment=1384868525427#c4613352858150026705> >> " >> > > >
