Do we still know how to make tritium? If so, let's make some and show it to more receptive people!
Michel 2009/9/19 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > I should have read this transcript more carefully. As I said, on p. 5-21 we > have Lewis asking a reasonable, informed question, and getting an answer > that should put all doubts to rest: > > Lewis: If you consider the total amount of tritium detected, compared with > the total in the amount of electrolyte added, then do a separation factor > calculation, can you say that you really have made the tritium in the cell? > > Storms: More tritium was detected than was introduced into the cell. > > Lewis: By what factor? > > Storms: By a factor of 70-80. > > Okay, so separation is not an issue. The cell has 70 times more tritium in > it than you can explain by separation (tritium preferentially remaining in > the electrolyte). There are other reasons to believe this, such as the fact > that when the effluent gas is recombined outside the cell, the resulting > heavy water contains high levels of tritium, so it isn't stuck back down in > the cell. > > On to page 5-22 and . . . Lewis asks the same question: > > Lewis: Some cells produce tritium, and some, no tritium. Could that not > simply result from different electrolysis separation factors on surfaces > which have received different treatment? Your curves seem to indicate that > the separation factor first increased, then fell to a constant value. > > Storms: The results do certainly vary a great deal. In some cases bursts of > tritium seemed to occur. The raw data which I show is very new, dating from > last Thursday. > > If I had been Ed I would have said, "look, I just told you, that's > impossible. Stop harping on it!" > > If you don't believe the concentration actually is 70 to 80 times too high > to fit your hypothesis, then say so. Give us a reason to doubt the > measurement. But if you have no reason to doubt the figures then it is time > for you to drop the hypothesis. It is refuted. It is childish to bring it up > again 5 minutes later! The discussion goes nowhere, and no issue is > resolved, when you refuse to accept that you are wrong. > > We have all seen skeptics do this sort of thing. It is irritating indeed! > > Elsewhere, Appleby reports tritium at levels of ">10E6 counts/ml/min > compared with background values (200 counts/ml/min) at the start of > experiments." (p. 17-10) That is convincing too, and I can't imagine anyone > ascribing it to separation. Lewis did not challenge this result. Rafelski > takes a turn at being annoying, challenging this with a newly invented rule > of experimental science -- and was promptly shot down by the facts: > > Rafelski: The anomalous heat effect is only of significance if it is there > on demand. Have you run several times in heavy water, with each instance > giving a positive result? > > Appleby: In every single case where we have tested palladium in heavy water, > we have had positive results, though in some cases the effects were small. > However, the more changes one makes in operating conditions on a given > electrode, the less the effect seems to become a function of time. > > Appleby should have added: "and by the way, your 'on-demand' demand is > ridiculous." Some of these comments make you want to shout out. I can > understand how an ignorant layman might imagine that a result must appear > "on demand" before it is significant, but how could a professional scientist > think so? Is he ignorant of history?!? Does he not realize how many > important results were irreproducible at first, and only later produced on > demand? > > On a positive note, it is surprising how many strong results were already > reported in October 1989. > > - Jed >
