Things may be more complicated than are imaged here. The helium ash produce might not be the end product of the completed reaction. The helium might be a transient step in a long string of ascending fusion reactions that start with the proton/proton(PP) initial reaction and end with boron or beryllium or heavier elements. Helium and tritium could be created and destroyed at equivalent rates with only a transient amount appearing in the ash. I would look for boron, beryllium, and lithium as the final ash products of the PP reaction.
The fixation on helium is a final ash product in a holdover concept from the initial cold fusion theories in the earliest days of cold fusion theories that attempted to explain cold fusion as a hot fusion process where highly compressive energies were postulated to produced helium from hydrogen based hot fusion. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > That is precisely my point Bob. They DID SEE TRITIUM so they did get > fusion. > > > > When DD fuses to He, on occasion you should see the strong photon even if > there is another mechanism which can thermalize the energy most of the time > in ways which are not fatal to the experimenter. And you should see > tritium. It is the favored channel. > > > > When you say SPAWAR did not have “hot conditions” that is contradictory on > its face, since the emitted photon alone is extremely hot as is the tritium > decay. > > > > If Mizuno had seen that same percentage of hot photons, he would have > perished. He is still with us AFAIK and he produced millions of times more > excess energy. > > > > > > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Jones-- > > > > I remember that the SPAWAR experiments indicated He formed with the > correct 24... Mev energy of a D-D fusion reaction. The evidence was in the > CR-39 detectors that they used. They also saw tritium and its > characteristic path in the Cr-39 detectors. Check out the report of SPAWAR > that I referenced a few comments ago. They did not have any hot > conditions and were using Pd electrodes. > > > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:31 PM > > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation > > > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > Ø Your attempt to dismiss the Claytor tritium results as being "high > voltage" is again specious. The voltages being used are not capable of > producing hot fusion. > > > > His voltage is capable, and the is no “dismissal,” and the “high” is > relative to electrolysis. Guess you have never heard of exploding wires. > Exploding wire experiment at 2000 volts can produce copious fusion. Voltage > gradients in Claytor’s system have varied over the years – but could in > fact be higher than in the Farnsworth Fusor, for instance. The gradient is > more important the absolute potential. > > > > Ø the mean free path of the electrons is very short and electrons or > protons never attain anywhere near the energy that the source *could* > provide in a high vacuum. > > > > Same for the Fusor, which is a dense plasma. I’m getting the picture that > you do not understand the range of Claytor’s experiments very well and how > they fit into a continuum of cold-to-warm. There was a time when his work > was closer to “cold fusion” and a time when it was closer to the Fusor. > There is a good argument that much of it is not “cold” and that the results > look exactly like the Fusor. > > > > Ø Why do you think that x-ray tubes need really high vacuum?... to > prevent these collisions that slow down the electrons. Again, you think a > single specious sentence can wipe away real, peer reviewed experimental > results. > > > > Wipe away? What are you talking about? It would help if you would read the > prior postings. There is no specious sentence here and Claytor’s results > are certainly strong… but my point is that they are not necessarily LENR in > the same sense that low voltage electrolysis is deemed to be. There is a > continuum, and Claytor has been at times closer to the Fusor, and at other > times closer to a P&F cell. > > > > Put simply, Claytor’s results are to my thinking stronger than anything > seen with helium as the ash, since he does produce tritium – WHICH IS > EXPECTED. > > > > How much clearer can I say that? The problem that you have is that some of > these results could be “hot fusion carried out at low power” in the same > way that a Fusor is, and you want them to be “cold”. That is NOT a > contradiction in terms. It is a semantic distinction that aggravates the > hell out of the helium-ash true believers since they do not want to lose > Claytor’s good results to another category of LENR that looks “hotter” than > cold fusion. > > > > Ø You are so determined that your theory of no fusion is correct that > you will make up stories in your mind to wash away the good data taken by > truly competent experimentalists. You have lost your open mind. > > > > What !?! This is totally bizarre, if not laughable. I would love to see > any evidence of helium fusion. It would make things so much more believable > than they now are. > > > > How could there be a “theory of no fusion” ? Instead what we have is > precious little evidence of fusion of deuterons to He4. If you carefully > read what I did say – everyone in the field should have been seeing > tritium, instead of He4 or at least some tritium. Then, there would be no > problem. The expected channel is tritium. > > > > Ø Ni-H could well be different. We will just have to wait for more > data. Mizuno is just a good data point with its own flaws and insights. > > > > It is by far the most robust experiment in the entire field. Ever. Why do > I get the weird sensation that the “read my book” crowd is conspiring to > marginalize Mizuno’s work - because his excellent results show no helium? > > > > > > Jones > > > > > >
