Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has been made in the absence of lithium.
Ed Storms Sent from my iPad > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH > reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? > > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The >> process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of >> thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium >> production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into >> account. >> >> Ed Storms. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in >>> some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... >>> >>> the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. >>> >>> It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... >>> >>> and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the >>> math... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>: >>>> Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons >>>> to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one >>>> part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive >>>> mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc >>>> assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the >>>> NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather >>>> than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? >>>> >>>> Ed Storms >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: H Veeder >>>>> >>>>> (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there >>>>> >> are no >>>>> gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your >>>>> theory >>>>> proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. >>>>> >>>>> > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a >>>>> > p-e-p >>>>> reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because >>>>> the >>>>> energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, >>>>> which >>>>> is almost undetectable. >>>>> >>>>> JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an >>>>> electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily >>>>> detectable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is >>>>> a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we >>>>> have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the >>>>> process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes >>>>> differ. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is >>>>> twofold >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go >>>>> directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first >>>>> step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is >>>>> ingrained and systemic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or >>>>> even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider >>>>> the obvious problem of exclusivity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no >>>>> gammas ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found >>>>> to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be >>>>> different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same >>>>> except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect >>>>> exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >>>>> that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >>>>> reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >>>>> Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, >>>>> when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the >>>>> hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory >>>>> - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor >>>>> indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays >>>>> are ok but no gammas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jones >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of >>>>> 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that >>>>> system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy >>>>> comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV >>>>> has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from >>>>> the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own >>>>> attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first – even if the >>>>> deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let’s get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for >>>>> adequately explaining the Rossi effect. >>>>> >
