Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Tritium is so extremely rare and unexpected, and its detection is so > certain > and reliable - that even its occasional appearance overrides EVERY AND ALL > of the skeptics objections which are mostly all associated with low > reproducibility. > I have often said this, but the skeptics disagree. They find reasons to doubt the results. Tritium has another advantage over heat. Some of the calorimetry in this field has been dubious, with amateur do-it-yourself instruments. Whereas I think most of the tritium studies were done by experts at BARC, Los Alamos and TAMU. They use professional grade off-the-shelf instruments. I suppose there is no such thing as a do-it-yourself tritium detector. In discussions with skeptics I have sometimes pointed out that the people in the BARC Safety Division who detected tritium must be good at their jobs because, as they themselves said: "if we could not detect we would be dead." I have also pointed out that the people who detected tritium at Los Alamos are also impressive, such as Jalbert. See p. 13.3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf QUOTE: Roland A. Jalbert *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection *involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years *for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintainance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ). *Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton) After I describe the people at BARC and Jalbert, the discussion ends. I do not recall any instances in which the skeptics responded. However, in other venues and discussions they continue to say they do not believe the tritium results. - Jed
