Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish.
Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: > > Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens > style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, > and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on > the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. > > Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the > cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting > a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant > degree. > > Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust > and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice > demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job > much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. > > Ed Storms > > On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control >> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature >> difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate >> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated >> material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a >> small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure >> equalization. This is not an expensive device. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right >> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will >> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to >> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active >> sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably >> because the tools and skill are not common. >> >> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, >> production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief >> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than >> a random event. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at >>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, >>> but getting the right size is the problem. >>> >>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack >>> sizes? >>> >> >> > > >
