I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The > process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of > thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium > production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them > into account. > > Ed Storms. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in > some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... > > the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. > > It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... > > and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the > math... > > > > > 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>: > >> Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting >> reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to >> one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive >> mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc >> assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the >> NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather >> than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> *From:* H Veeder >> >> *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* >> >> >> >> The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there >> are no >> gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your >> theory >> proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. >> >> > RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a >> p-e-p >> reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because >> the >> energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, >> which >> is almost undetectable. >> >> JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron >> producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. >> >> >> >> Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is >> a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we >> have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). >> >> >> >> HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the >> process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes >> differ. >> >> >> >> JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is >> twofold >> >> >> >> 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go >> directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step >> is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is >> ingrained and systemic. >> >> >> >> 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten >> or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider >> the obvious problem of exclusivity. >> >> >> >> Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no >> gammas ! >> >> >> >> Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found >> to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is "supposed to be >> different" from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same >> except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect >> exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. >> >> >> >> When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can >> that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both >> reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? >> Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. >> >> >> >> Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, >> when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the >> hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. >> >> >> >> ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory >> - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor >> indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are >> ok but no gammas >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of >> 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that >> system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes >> from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. >> >> >> >> So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV >> has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from >> the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own >> attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, >> the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. >> >> >> >> People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! >> >> >> >> Let's get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for >> adequately explaining the Rossi effect. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
