Close only counts in horse shoes. There is always a small amount of deuterium in water. That tritium could be coming from contamination.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >>> 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" <[email protected]> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
