Hello Jones We analysed the reactionproduct with a multi channel analyser and we where convinced that it was 201 Tl. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:40 PM Subject: Re: comments on the Cirillo paper
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "P.J van Noorden" > > > We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department > > to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of > radioactive > > thallium is about 80 eV.... > > The amounts of thallium we used was about a few nanograms. > Therefore you can > > inject it in a patient beacuse in this concentration it is > not toxic.The > > amount I used for this experiment is 1% of the amount we > inject into a > > patient. > > Hello Peter, > > Since this tiny amount of thallium works out to only a few > one-hundredths of a nanogram, one must suspect that this > cannot be measured reliably (by mass) on any kind of a > precision scale, so one must further suspect that you > measured it by assuming that any radioactive emission was > due to the thallium... > > ...but, that raises another problem. > > What if the species which you measured "in the second > vessel, where you only would expect distillated water" was > NOT the Thallium? That is, it was not the thallium which had > migrated through the walls of the condenser, but instead was > Tritium, which was the ash of the adjoining CF reaction? > > Tritium of course, easily is transported through most > metals, such as your condenser. I can find no reference on > the web to thallium crossing a metal boundary. Also the 80 > KeV is characteristic of tritium as well as thallium, but > tritium would have a broader spread (did you do spectrometry > ?) > > Although it is somewhat of an affront to Occam, you could > conceivably have witnessed both radioactive remediation (of > the thallium) and at the same time the LENR cold-fusion (ala > Claytor) of the tritium-ash variety, in this cell. But since > the total radioactive reading on your meter of the combined > two sources added up to nearly what you were expecting from > just the thallium, you assumed the simplest underlying > situation? > > Jones > > >
