Jones -- As you're alluding to, the tritium production is miniscule. Tritium is produced in an alternative reaction pathway in Ed's model, not the main, and it can't be produced by the same reaction producing neutrons (which Ed thinks are being produced by a separate fracto-fusion phenomenon). The main pathway (d+d in a resonating cluster), in agreement with the many who have found approximate commensuration between heat/helium, produces heat, helium, and ~ 24 MeV. What's the problem exactly? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
As you mention as well, we are still waiting for outcomes of nuclear ash measurements in NiH system, so why are you saying Ed's tritium expectation has already been "disproved" in NiH? Mills' work you're saying is the purported disproof? NiH is the most under-investigated & poorly measured system in the field. There is nothing conclusive about almost any NiH evidence as far as I'm concerned, even Mills' -- except that it produces excess heat. Regards. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Foks0904 > > I'm glad to see you have put forward some testable > predictions. Ed's theory also puts forward some testable predictions, which > is important. I think the easiest ones should be well advertised and > investigated more thoroughly by those able in the community. > > > Well, that is another problem. There are actually unmet predictions already > available. These have been mentioned but ignored. If his theory were > accurate, there should be plenty of tritium formation in Ni-H. Lots more > than is seen. > > That is a consequence of deuterium-protium having a much lower > cross-section > than protium-protium. Tritium is the easiest proof of all. It is detectable > in infinitesimal amounts yet there is scant evidence of it in Ni-H > reactions. Sub-nanogram. There is some formed, but is fact, it is de > minimis. In fact, almost all of the deuterium formed from fusion of > protons, > if it were really being formed, should go to tritium very rapidly, due to > lower cross-section. > > Storms mentioned that Randell Mills, in the early days, had detected > tritium. This was in an old issue of Fusion Technology (highly regarded > magazine). Since Mills went on to develop his alternative theory where LENR > “does not occur”… we obviously heard no more from him on that detail. I am > certain that he saw tritium. However, what is “telling” about this episode, > and in the tiny rate of 3H formation - is not supported by way that Ed > interprets it. No way is it close to being commensurate with excess heat. > > In fact, all of this information, taken together relative to the big > picture, is yet another indication that yes, many of the theories out there > are partially correct, at a very low level of participation, such that > fusion to deuterium, and then to tritium WILL indeed happen. However, when > this is happening at such low level, as low as the ppm level, it is orders > of magnitude too low to account for the massive thermal output. > > Rossi’s reactor under test by the Swedes for 6 months at the kilowatt > level, > under Storms’ view of protium fusion - should produce massive amounts of > tritium (if that theory were to be the only thing going on). It would not > surprise anyone if micrograms were seen after 6 months, instead of grams, > we > will have to wait for that data, but if so it means that Ed’s theory is not > incorrect nor is it accurate, either. It simply does not explain 99% of the > thermal gain. > > In the end – the miniscule tritium formation in Ni-H proves that yes – > proton-fusion is partially correct, but far from the whole story – and is > probably five to six orders of magnitude removed from being "The > Explanation > of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" insofar as it relates to the claimed gain > of > the Rossi effect. > > Jones > >
