I believe DGT data...ICCF17 has an ash assay that shows production of large amounts of lithium, boron, and beryllium. Copper is not produced and nickel is not consumed. If a NiH system is going to work for months and years, you would expect that the nano-structures would not be consumed in the reaction...nickel nanowires would stay unmodified for years on end.
Only reactions involving hydrogen are conducive to a long and productive service life of a continuously running reactor On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >
