subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:A Stake in the Heart \- a stunning revelation"

Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 I read it and was impressed until I became confused by the statistical
 analysis discussion on page eight.




 


 *For our 33 experiments involving heat and helium measurements, excess
 heat was measuredin 21 cases and excess helium was observed in 18 studies.
 Thus 12 experiments yielded noexcess heat and 15 measurements gave no
 excess helium.*
 


Read the original documents. He explains the discrepancy. Three are
excluded. One of the flasks broke so the helium could not be measured, and
there were calorimetric problems with the other two, so they think the heat
was an artifact. That leaves 18 which they were sure produced heat, and for
which they were able to measure helium. Quoting Miles:

We completed 18 measurements of excess helium for experiments producing
excess heat. These helium measurements were performed at three different
laboratories: the University of Texas (References 14 and 15), Rockwell
International (Reference 22), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (References 24,
25, and 31).

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure
 there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are
 talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of
 this work was done a decade ago.


I missed that gem. No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are
talking about three of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U.
Texas, Rockwell International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was
stated by Miles, by me and by others many times. Has Jones Beene read
nothing? Or does he think that world-class experts at leading labs do not
know the characteristics of their own instruments, and they cannot
distinguish between parts per billion and per million?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-19 Thread Axil Axil

My sense is that the transmutation process is dependent on the geometry of
the surface that the LENR reaction is produced by. There are many types of
such surface geometries that are capable of producing the LENR effect and
therefore there are many types of transmutation mechanisms possible among
the various classes of LENR experiments.

The false assumption that underlie this discussion is that LENR must always
produce helium. This assumption may be valid in a particular narrow class
of LENR experiments, by invalid in another class of experiments because of
the geometric surface characteristics of the particular class of
experiments.

At the end of the day, LENR and its associated ash production is based on
the particular geometry of the surface that is producing the ash.


On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure
 there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are
 talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of
 this work was done a decade ago.


 I missed that gem. No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are
 talking about three of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U.
 Texas, Rockwell International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was
 stated by Miles, by me and by others many times. Has Jones Beene read
 nothing? Or does he think that world-class experts at leading labs do not
 know the characteristics of their own instruments, and they cannot
 distinguish between parts per billion and per million?

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

*  No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are talking about three 
of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U. Texas, Rockwell 
International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was stated by Miles, by me 
and by others many times. Has Jones Beene read nothing? Or does he think that 
world-class experts at leading labs do not know the characteristics of their 
own instruments

 

In many case we are talking about self-made gadgets to enrich the helium. 
Rothwell talks about 16 others besides Miles… so which of them also has access 
to a putative ppb MS, and which has not relied on enrichment? 

 

Has Rothwell read nothing, or can he explain why these top labs cannot measure 
the mass of the proton and come up with the identical value? That would be an 
important ppb measurement - and yet they cannot do it. 

 

Apparently someone at one of these facilities, who may or may not speak for the 
Lab itself, apparently thinks he can measure ppb in a repeatable way for 
helium, without enrichment - but the proof is in the puddin’ and if they could 
do this, in a repeatable way - why can they not measure proton mass at greater 
than ppm? 

 

Why does Rothwell not identify the manufacture of this magical MS device, so we 
can cross-check with the published specs from the manufacturer ? Probably 
because he knows the published specs do not support ppb.

 

This makes me think that this ppb nonsense is NOT something which we should be 
basing the future of the entire field on, when in fact neither of the top two 
“hero” efforts, in terms of net gain in megajoules – showed helium !!

 

That’ right – neither of the hero results of the past 25 years of LENR showed 
helium. We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who had access to 
MS not test at all? Or… heaven forbid, did they test and decline to publish, 
since the results did not meet expectations? It makes no sense that they would 
not test.

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

In many case we are talking about self-made gadgets to enrich the helium.


No, in every case I know of, enrichment was done by the mass spectroscopy
experts themselves, with in house equipment. There are no self-made gadgets
involved. Miles did nothing to the gas samples. He sent them out as
collected.



 Rothwell talks about 16 others besides Miles…


I did not mention the other studies. Storms lists them. You can read the
papers describing many of them at LENR-CANR.org. Here is the mass
spectrometer at the ENEA:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187#PhotosENEAFrascati

It does not look cobbled together or self-made to me.



 so which of them also has access to a putative ppb MS, and which has not
 relied on enrichment?


Most of them do not need ppb level instruments. Most collect the gas for a
longer duration than Miles, with a closed cell. That concentrates the
helium more. I would not call that enrichment because it implies they
took something away leaving helium.

Miles had an open cell that can only collect a fixed amount of effluent
gas, over a fixed time period. (1 hour 15 minutes).



 Why does Rothwell not identify the manufacture of this magical MS device,
 so we can cross-check with the published specs from the manufacturer ?


The literature published by Miles and by the labs describes all this in
detail. Let me repeat this quote:

We completed 18 measurements of excess helium for experiments producing
excess heat. These helium measurements were performed at three different
laboratories: the University of Texas (References 14 and 15), Rockwell
International (Reference 22), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (References 24,
25, and 31).

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

See that document for refs. 14, 15, 22, 24, 25 and 31, which will lead you
to still other references documenting the claims. See also the Hoffman book
describing Rockwell's mass spectrometer.



 Probably because he knows the published specs do not support ppb.


Beene has not read anything about the instruments at U. Texas, Rockwell, or
the Bur. of Mines. If he had read something, he would not be asking me for
information. Since he has read nothing, he knows nothing, and he has no
basis for making these assertions.



 We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who had access to MS
 not test at all?


How do you know they did not test? I have no idea whether they did or not.

In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than
Miles, and the cells were closed for 3 months, whereas Miles' was open and
could only collect for an hour and 15 minutes. So if they collected and
analyzed helium they would have found far more. They would not need parts
per billion levels of precision.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

I wrote:


 In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than
 Miles . . .


Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power.

I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect helium.
Most cells are not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

I appreciate  respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will
reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on
a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the
same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium
correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are
merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just
classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between
believers in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or
theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The
arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to
task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just
trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying
to blow the lid off (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM
distinction (as Jed  Mel have made abundantly clear). Disbelievers in
heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a faith-based argument
in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I wrote:


 In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than
 Miles . . .


 Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power.

 I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect
 helium. Most cells are not.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

This has got to be a joke, right? 

 

Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my day. 

 

In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific conclusion 
other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium cannot be responsible for 
gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist - what difference 
does logic and factuality make? 

 

This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can. However, 
if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are spouting here, 
the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear physics - is that the 
helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons to helium-4.

 

Jones

 

From: Foks0904 

 

I appreciate  respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will 
reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on a 
single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the same 
time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium correlation 
in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are merely similar) 
goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just classic 
pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between believers in 
hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or theories) that has very 
little connection to experimental reality.The arguments against the Miles work 
is nothing new, has never been brought to task in a peer review, or even 
quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just trying to save face (pointlessly so) 
because he made a mistake by trying to blow the lid off (just like Krivit) 
with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM distinction (as Jed  Mel have made 
abundantly clear). Disbelievers in heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, 
but it is a faith-based argument in terms of the actual 
probabilities/percentages.

 

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

I wrote:

 

In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than Miles 
. . .

 

Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power.

 

I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect helium. 
Most cells are not.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive
your own childishness. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how
to act like more of an adult than you. Drop the adolescent LOL and
winning-is-everything attitude, will you please?

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  This has got to be a joke, right?



 Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my
 day.



 In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific
 conclusion other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium *cannot* be
 responsible for gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist
 - what difference does logic and factuality make?



 This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can.
 However, if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are
 spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear
 physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons
 to helium-4.



 Jones



 *From:* Foks0904



 I appreciate  respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will
 reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on
 a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the
 same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium
 correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are
 merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just
 classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between
 believers in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or
 theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The
 arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to
 task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just
 trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying
 to blow the lid off (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM
 distinction (as Jed  Mel have made abundantly clear). Disbelievers in
 heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a faith-based argument
 in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages.



 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I wrote:



   In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power
 than Miles . . .



 Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power.



 I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect
 helium. Most cells are not.



 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you shill
for Mill's work), I wouldn't go out of my way to interview people in the
field with widely differing opinions on the matter at hand (i.e. Ahern vs.
Storms). I have no pet theory, I make no firm conclusions, I have only
hunches based on actual, tangible evidence: such as the well-vetted
heat/helium work. You have one experiment from Mizuno and a bunch of
ambiguous in-house studies from Mills. Mills has totally reformulated QM to
fit his pet-view of the world, which you seem to support, and I'm the
one going out on a limb? Please don't make me laugh.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  This has got to be a joke, right?



 Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my
 day.



 In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific
 conclusion other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium *cannot* be
 responsible for gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist
 - what difference does logic and factuality make?



 This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can.
 However, if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are
 spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear
 physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons
 to helium-4.



 Jones



 *From:* Foks0904



 I appreciate  respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will
 reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on
 a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the
 same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium
 correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are
 merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just
 classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between
 believers in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or
 theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The
 arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to
 task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just
 trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying
 to blow the lid off (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM
 distinction (as Jed  Mel have made abundantly clear). Disbelievers in
 heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a faith-based argument
 in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages.



 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I wrote:



   In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power
 than Miles . . .



 Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power.



 I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect
 helium. Most cells are not.



 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Foks0904 

 

Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive your 
own childishness.

 

And this kind of talk from you to me – impugning the motives of anyone who does 
not follow the anti-science rhetoric which your are dishing out here - is that 
indicative of your adult status? 

 

I’ll say it again, since it must not have registered before – I’m not 
interested in anything other than promoting LENR in a logical, scientific and 
valid way. 

 

This is science-based, and how you can equate that with childishness, when it 
does not agree with you, makes me think that you belong somewhere else where 
fan-boy enthusiasm is appreciated. 

 

I'm probably not even half your age and I know how to act like more of an adult 
than you. 

 

Really? If you truly believe that your prior remarks are not inciting the kind 
of response which you will always receive on any forum - when you go that far - 
then you are a long way from becoming a rational adult – no matter what your 
age.

 

BTW – what is your name?

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Foks0904 

 

And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you shill for 
Mill's work)

 

You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you 
read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. 

 

Please find somewhere else to troll.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-19 Thread Axil Axil

Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.

From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own reality
tunnels, and diversity is of course important to any evolving ecology,
everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking processes, and
less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a learning/information
driven open system. When communication breaks down, the system breaks down.

Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a true believer in
any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work)

Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for
our own ideas or at least his invalid  impressions of them ( aka  reality
tunnels) and won't give us the room or allow us to develop  and to hold
our own beliefs.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Foks0904



 And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you
 shill for Mill's work)



 You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you
 read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics.



 Please find somewhere else to troll.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

This whole thread began because you misunderstood something you read (taken
 posted form from a private forum you're not even a part of) and blew it
out of proportion. You're the one with a chip on your shoulder -- that's
not my problem. Spare me the self-righteous indignation. Name call and be
condescending if you so choose.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Foks0904



 And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you
 shill for Mill's work)



 You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you
 read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics.



 Please find somewhere else to troll.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Are you serious? What a joke. Get a thicker skin Axil.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.

 From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own
 reality tunnels, and diversity is of course important to any evolving
 ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking
 processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a
 learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down,
 the system breaks down.

 Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a true believer
 in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work)

 Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for
 our own ideas or at least his invalid  impressions of them ( aka
 reality tunnels) and won't give us the room or allow us to develop  and
 to hold our own beliefs.

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Foks0904



 And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you
 shill for Mill's work)



 You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what
 you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics.



 Please find somewhere else to troll.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

If you go out of your way to create an echo chamber by chasing off people
who disagree with you, you're well on your way to achieving that -- a forum
equivalent of an intellectual mono-culture. Shame on you, Axil, seriously.
I disagree with some of you, occasionally engage in snarky
back-and-fourths, and that means I'm on some mission to perform hatchet
jobs on each and every one of you? You are delusional at best.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.

 From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own
 reality tunnels, and diversity is of course important to any evolving
 ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking
 processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a
 learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down,
 the system breaks down.

 Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a true believer
 in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work)

 Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for
 our own ideas or at least his invalid  impressions of them ( aka
 reality tunnels) and won't give us the room or allow us to develop  and
 to hold our own beliefs.

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Foks0904



 And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you
 shill for Mill's work)



 You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what
 you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics.



 Please find somewhere else to troll.



 Jones

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Axil, He says he is young, which is obvious … so we could cut him some slack on 
immaturity – if … that is, he were not trying to lecture others as if he had a 
unique skill set for this field … or … if he had made any contribution here.

 

I looked back through the archives and cannot find a single thread where 
Foks0904 has made an intelligent contribution, but please let me know if I have 
missed anything since I’m not going to waste any more time on a troll. My real 
problem with his onscreen demeanor is the audacity of accusing others of 
childishness, when he is the real child, or “faith-based” belief, when that is 
all he has to offer, and especially not reading the posts that he wants to be 
heard on – what a hypocrite !

 

And - I do not mind anyone posting under a screen name, up to the point they 
start to become a nuisance, troll, hypocrite and non-contributor. He appears to 
be 4 for 4 on that list.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.  

 

From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own reality 
tunnels, and diversity is of course important to any evolving ecology, 
everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking processes, and less 
dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a learning/information driven open 
system. When communication breaks down, the system breaks down.

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-19 Thread Axil Axil

Hear yourself foks:

Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive
your own childishness. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how
to act like more of an adult than you. Drop the adolescent LOL and
winning-is-everything attitude, will you please?

Please raise the level of your rhetoric. Where are the experimentally based
technical  points that will convince Jones to change his opinions? I accept
criticism based of experimental evidence not character assassination.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you go out of your way to create an echo chamber by chasing off people
 who disagree with you, you're well on your way to achieving that -- a forum
 equivalent of an intellectual mono-culture. Shame on you, Axil, seriously.
 I disagree with some of you, occasionally engage in snarky
 back-and-fourths, and that means I'm on some mission to perform hatchet
 jobs on each and every one of you? You are delusional at best.

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.


 From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own
 reality tunnels, and diversity is of course important to any evolving
 ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking
 processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a
 learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down,
 the system breaks down.

 Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a true believer
 in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work)

 Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for
 our own ideas or at least his invalid  impressions of them ( aka
 reality tunnels) and won't give us the room or allow us to develop
 and to hold our own beliefs.

 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Foks0904



 And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you
 shill for Mill's work)



 You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what
 you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics.



 Please find somewhere else to troll.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 Where are the experimentally based technical  points that will convince
 Jones to change his opinions?


The papers by Miles might convince him, but evidently he has not read them.
I say that because he keeps making assertions that contradict those papers.
A person cannot be convinced by papers he has not read.

If the papers by Miles do not convince him then I would say the discussion
is closed. We have to agree to disagree. I have no other evidence to
present.

His most recent argument falls outside the bounds of conventional debate. I
find it impossible to parse. It is: The IMRA laboratory may have had a
good opportunity to study helium, or they may not have. They may or may not
have done a study. So that proves Miles is wrong. Two unknowns magically
prove an assertion they have no connection to. Even if you knew the truth
value of both (which we do not) it would tell you nothing about the
conclusion.

I guess that is New Age reasoning.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

I did not fully describe Beene's argument. There are three postulates, not
two:

1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to study helium, or
they may not have.

2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have.

3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive, or it might be
negative.

We have no evidence for or against any of these, but regardless of the
truth value, together they prove:

Miles was mistaken.



Any combination proves Miles was mistaken, even 'true, false, false' or
'false, false, false.' It is a powerful argument!

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

This is absurd spin by Rothwell, but I will waste the time with another
rebuttal, so that the archive, at least, will include some bit of sanity on
this subject. 

Of course we already know that JR made the thousand-fold mistake in what he
reported as the level of ambient helium, so his judgment is in question on
everything else. BTW - this needs to be corrected in the record as well even
if he has reedited that paper. I’m not sure he ever acknowledged that he
made the egregious error.

Jed – for the record there are 5 ppm of helium in the atmosphere and not 5
ppb as you reported in the original Miles paper, along with other errors.
Yes I did read it – so if you have made the correction already, do not
pretend that you were correct all along.

From: Jed Rothwell 

1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to
study helium, or they may not have.

No one, including Rothwell thinks that they “may not have had” an excellent
opportunity, along with proper MS available. So, of course they had an
excellent opportunity to report helium-to-heat ratio.

2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have.

The rational assumption, given the scientific method, can only be that did
the study, but did not publish the results. To say otherwise, as Rothwell
implies, assumes that they were ignorant of proper methodology, and we know
that they were not.

3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive,
or it might be negative.

No. If it was positive – since they were in desperate need of future funding
at the time – it would have been published. In fact they were closed down
later. That no such study was published is indicative of the lack of helium,
at least the lack of helium at anything capable of explaining megajoules.
This would indicate to potential funders that they did not understand the
reaction, which is true. They did not understand that helium could appear as
a low probability QM effect but that other process could provide the low COP
which they saw.

We have no evidence for or against any of these, but
regardless of the truth value, together they prove: Miles was mistaken.

No - he was not necessarily mistaken. Who said he was mistaken? Not me. Once
again, you are not reading the earlier posts, or else you are putting a
false spin on them to further your misguided agenda.

Miles was led to believe that he had a correlation of heat to helium based
on milliwatt heat level experiments. If that information was correct, it
only applies to milliwatt level experiments. Several times it has been
stated that QM tunneling could easily operate at milliwatt levels - to
provide trace helium at the ppb level. 

However, QM is low probability and does not scale to watt level. At the
megajoule level of Roulette/Pons, Mizuno or anyone else - there has never
been a report of helium commensurate with heat.

Therefore, the only scientifically justified conclusion that we can reach
from Miles work is that milliwatt level fusion has been shown by him to have
helium output at the ppb level - which could be commensurate with fusion –
so long as one believes this is possible to measure this accurately - with
the instrumentation used.

If you buy the conclusion that ppb instrumentation was available to do this,
then in my opinion, the most that you can say is that it happens at
milliwatt levels.

The fact remains – and I hope is not in dispute - there have been megajoule
level experiments; and yet NONE of them has shown helium commensurate with
thermal output - so there is no scientific justification for assuming that
QM reactions are scalable upwards in LENR, when we know for certain that in
other fields, QM does not scale upwards.

Hope this helps to correct the record

Jones
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to
 study helium, or they may not have.

 No one, including Rothwell thinks that they “may not have had” an excellent
 opportunity, along with proper MS available. So, of course they had an
 excellent opportunity to report helium-to-heat ratio.


That is incorrect. I do not know whether this equipment could have been
adapted for a helium study. Most cells cannot, including some of the really
good ones from McKubre. You have to have very tightly closed cells with the
best Swagelok connectors. OR you have to have an open cell like the one
Miles used, which was self-purging.

An experiment has to be designed from the ground up to contain the helium
and then measure it. That can interfere with other design goals. I do not
know whether these experiments were designed for helium studies. Just
looking at the schematics, I do not see an on-line mass spec connection,
and there are too many other things poking into the cell. It is difficult
to draw a sample after the test. An on-line connection is better.

Perhaps this schematic is incomplete. Perhaps they did a helium study with
some other configuration. Offhand, this one does not seem promising, but I
cannot judge.



 2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have.

 The rational assumption, given the scientific method, can only be that did
 the study, but did not publish the results.


No that is not rational. It is jumping to a conclusion about equipment you
know nothing about.



 3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive,
 or it might be negative.

 No. If it was positive – since they were in desperate need of future
 funding
 at the time – it would have been published.


They had tons of funding. They were rolling in money. They published
practically nothing. I was told this is because their findings were
considered intellectual property.



 In fact they were closed down later.


In a fight over the intellectual property. Not because they ran out of
money. Toyota has billions and billions of dollars.



 That no such study was published is indicative of the lack of helium . . .


There are countless details about this research which were never published.
I learned about some of important details from Martin, mainly about
materials. They have not been revealed as far as I know. I do not know the
actual details, but I know what sort of things were discovered about the
palladium. I know that it has all been kept under wraps.



 We have no evidence for or against any of these, but
 regardless of the truth value, together they prove: Miles was mistaken.

 No - he was not necessarily mistaken. Who said he was mistaken? Not me.


Well it sure sounds like you are saying that! Look at the title of this
thread.

You sure as heck do not have any technical justification for any of your
assertions. Every factyou have pointed to so far has been wrong. Flat out
wrong. For example, your belief that the mass spectrometers in these
studies are not capable of measuring ppb levels of helium is completely
wrong.



 Miles was led to believe that he had a correlation of heat to helium based
 on milliwatt heat level experiments. If that information was correct, it
 only applies to milliwatt level experiments.


I doubt it. Anyway, 500 mW is pretty close to a watt. I doubt there is
another mechanism that clicks in at 1 W, or 10 W.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Every fact you have pointed to so far has been wrong. Flat out wrong. 

 

Really. Here are the most important facts in this discussion, and none of them 
is wrong.

 

1)no gamma radiation is detected 

2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion without 
gammas

3)the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3, yet the 
proponent does not detect tritium or He3

4)there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them show a 
helium-to-heat correlation.

5)There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere

6)Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex

7)Helium diffuses into Pyrex

8)The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower than the 
amount of helium in the atmosphere

 

It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive theory of 
D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above, when the only contrary 
evidence is part per billion of helium, hundreds of times less than in the 
atmosphere, which is supposedly being detected by machines which remain 
unidentified.

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 1)no gamma radiation is detected

True.



  2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion
 without gammas

Oh yes there is. See: M. Miles and others doing cold fusion. That's proof.
Pretty good experimental proof. Your assertion is based on theory.
Experiments trump theory.



  3)the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3, yet
 the proponent does not detect tritium or He3

Evidently that is not true. That is to say, the experimental evidence says
that is not true.



  4)there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them show
 a helium-to-heat correlation.

No one has looked for helium in one of these experiments, as far as I know.
I do not know of any published papers, and I am pretty familiar with the
literature.



  5)There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere

 6)Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex

 7)Helium diffuses into Pyrex

Yes of course, but as I pointed out previously, the rate of diffusion is
known and Miles measured it and confirmed it.



  8)The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower
 than the amount of helium in the atmosphere

Yes, and the blank experiments proved that is true, beyond question. You
say it may be a problem but you are flat out wrong. You have not shown why
it might be a problem. You might as well claim there can be no experiments
in vacuum here on earth because we are surrounded by air. There is no
question helium is excluded from the cells, except for 4 ppb background.
Since that background is consistent we can be sure it does not explain
Miles' results.



   It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive
 theory of D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above . . .

It is quite comprehensible to Miles, to Storms, me and many others. You
disagree, but you have no logical or technical justification. The fact that
the background is lower than atmosphere is irrelevant.



 , when the only contrary evidence is part per billion of helium . . .


That is not the only contrary evidence, as I am sure you know. There have
been other experiments that achieved much higher concentrations, including
concentrations above atmosphere (McKubre). Still others that started off at
atmospheric concentration, deliberately.

Since you know these facts as well as I do, you are being intellectually
dishonest by pretending there is only one contrary evidence. You are
being childish, and you are not fooling anyone. This is inappropriate for
this forum. We acknowledge what the literature claims. We don't have to
agree, but we do not pretend that claims do not exist. You have read this
other literature. Perhaps you have reason to disbelieve McKubre and the
ENEA along with Miles, but please do not pretend you are ignorant or that
their papers do not exist.



 , hundreds of times less than in the atmosphere, which is supposedly being
 detected by machines which remain unidentified.


They are identified in the literature and in the Hoffman book, as I am sure
you know. The laboratories describe them in great detail. Perhaps you will
refuse to read the literature and the Hoffman book. However, just because
you will not look at something, that does not make it magically vanish.
That is a tiresome bad habit of the so-called skeptics. Don't stoop to it.

(People who seriously believe that the literature does not exist because
they refuse to look at it lack what psychologists call object permanence
which most children acquire at 3 months.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-19 Thread James Bowery

I have to admit, despite _wanting_ an _easier_ way to adopt as working
hypothesis Mills's theory -- which I'm convinced is quite plausible -- than
Robin's extrapolations beyond where Mills himself will go with his
theory; Jones
Beene is no help in fulfilling my desire to avoid delving into Robin's
extrapolations of a theory with which I am not yet competent.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 1)no gamma radiation is detected

 True.



  2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion
 without gammas

 Oh yes there is. See: M. Miles and others doing cold fusion. That's proof.
 Pretty good experimental proof. Your assertion is based on theory.
 Experiments trump theory.



  3)the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3,
 yet the proponent does not detect tritium or He3

 Evidently that is not true. That is to say, the experimental evidence says
 that is not true.



  4)there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them
 show a helium-to-heat correlation.

 No one has looked for helium in one of these experiments, as far as I
 know. I do not know of any published papers, and I am pretty familiar with
 the literature.



  5)There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere

 6)Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex

 7)Helium diffuses into Pyrex

 Yes of course, but as I pointed out previously, the rate of diffusion is
 known and Miles measured it and confirmed it.



  8)The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower
 than the amount of helium in the atmosphere

 Yes, and the blank experiments proved that is true, beyond question. You
 say it may be a problem but you are flat out wrong. You have not shown why
 it might be a problem. You might as well claim there can be no experiments
 in vacuum here on earth because we are surrounded by air. There is no
 question helium is excluded from the cells, except for 4 ppb background.
 Since that background is consistent we can be sure it does not explain
 Miles' results.



   It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive
 theory of D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above . . .

 It is quite comprehensible to Miles, to Storms, me and many others. You
 disagree, but you have no logical or technical justification. The fact that
 the background is lower than atmosphere is irrelevant.



 , when the only contrary evidence is part per billion of helium . . .


 That is not the only contrary evidence, as I am sure you know. There have
 been other experiments that achieved much higher concentrations, including
 concentrations above atmosphere (McKubre). Still others that started off at
 atmospheric concentration, deliberately.

 Since you know these facts as well as I do, you are being intellectually
 dishonest by pretending there is only one contrary evidence. You are
 being childish, and you are not fooling anyone. This is inappropriate for
 this forum. We acknowledge what the literature claims. We don't have to
 agree, but we do not pretend that claims do not exist. You have read this
 other literature. Perhaps you have reason to disbelieve McKubre and the
 ENEA along with Miles, but please do not pretend you are ignorant or that
 their papers do not exist.



 , hundreds of times less than in the atmosphere, which is supposedly
 being detected by machines which remain unidentified.


 They are identified in the literature and in the Hoffman book, as I am
 sure you know. The laboratories describe them in great detail. Perhaps you
 will refuse to read the literature and the Hoffman book. However, just
 because you will not look at something, that does not make it magically
 vanish. That is a tiresome bad habit of the so-called skeptics. Don't
 stoop to it.

 (People who seriously believe that the literature does not exist because
 they refuse to look at it lack what psychologists call object permanence
 which most children acquire at 3 months.)

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-19 Thread Eric Walker

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

Jones is now just trying to save face (pointlessly so) ...


This would be quite difficult to do at this point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-18 Thread Ruby



From Dr. Melvin Miles:

/Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 
measurements.  The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized 
in highly accurate helium measurements.  The DOI lab in Texas could 
easily measure 1 ppb.  The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even 
better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb./


Ruby

On 9/17/14, 6:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I'm not comfortable being critical of Miles, who is a fine researcher. 
And my opinion is not based on anyone's incompetence nor is it based 
on any particular result - but on a down-to-earth understanding of 
mass spectrometers and what the specification and error limits 
actually are, and in looking at all the ways that mistakes can be made 
at these extremes. It's pretty basic. The challenge of this kind of 
measurement was always too great to handle on a small budget, and 
still is- when the resources are limited.


Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure 
there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we 
are talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and 
most of this work was done a decade ago. Miles was up against an 
intractable problem and we should thank him for being completely up 
front about it.


But let's not forget he is talking about a few PARTS PER BILLION. It 
does not matter how well or how many times you calibrate -- there is 
no acceptable measurement technique which can derive accuracy at this 
kind of helium dilution. None of the other 16, 18 or whatever number 
of measurements - which have purportedly taken place, were robust 
enough to have made the amount of helium which is needed in order to 
get the dilution level up to ppm... without extreme enrichment, and 
that is where the problem lies.


Getting the He/D2 ratio higher prior to measurement is what few want 
to talk about in detail. To make things worse, much worse -- there is 
a technique for bringing samples up from ppb to ppm which is called 
gettering or NEG (non evaporable gettering). It can introduce order 
of magnitude errors.



Jones


--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-18 Thread Jones Beene

Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR
advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper
question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science - not
promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper
understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes
against the grain.

 

Funny thing, however, in trying to move in that direction. What is more
basic and fundamental as a measurement value which needs to be known - than
the mass of the proton? Let's focus on that simple item - wrt the broad
claim of accuracy at the ppb range.

 

Let me say that as a personal interest, since this is somewhat related but
not exactly - I have a collection of mass measurements of the proton, from
different Labs around the world, over different time frames.

 

Conveniently, for this discussion - the mass variation in these measurements
goes down to around the 9-10 significant digits, but that is where the fun
starts. In this case we are not talking about dilution of helium in a mixed
gas, but the claim that 1 ppb mass variation with good accuracy is possible.
Yes, I realize this is not apples-to-apples, but I think it makes the point
that Miles claim is not believable as a practical matter, when it comes down
to real-world applicability.

 

The CODATA recommended value for proton mass is 


 

1.672 621 777(74) x 10-27 kg   

Where 74 ppb is the supposed error range - which would be mean that top labs
should all come in with something similar - correct? Even so, this error
range is well over 1 ppb and it represents the best effort, Worldwide - for
a most important value.

 

Variation is actual measurements, however, as published over the years is
huge - especially in countries which may not have wanted to follow the
Western lead, and especially back in the nineties. Even Jefferson Lab, no
slouch when it comes to measurement - reports a value that diverges way back
at the ppm range, as do dozens if not hundreds of other measurements, and
most of them were back when Miles work was being done.

 

If the experts cannot get their act together - at greater than ppm on the
mass of the proton, given its importance to physics, then I'm simply far
from confident that one can accurately discriminate in a situation where
there is claimed to be a few ppb of an atom of helium in a mix, the other
components of which are so close. 

 

Of course, I have never claimed to be an expert on this, only a collector of
information from various sources - but I have talked to several experts who
agree that this talk about accuracy in the ppb range is closer to wishful
thinking than something which can be taken as fact.

 

For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas
overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But
again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and
we should have that report in a matter of months.

 

The think I find most alarming is the circle the wagons mentality that
seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno's work. It is
anti-scientific and counter-productive. 

 

From: Ruby 


From Dr. Melvin Miles:

Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements.
The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate
helium measurements.  The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb.  The
Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1
ppb.

Ruby

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-18 Thread Jed Rothwell

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being
 made, and we should have that report in a matter of months.


1. McKubre did an experiment where ppm of helium was produced.

2. When you can measure ppb levels with confidence at a high signal to
noise ratio, it makes no sense to say it takes . . . ppm of helium. Why
not demand parts per hundred? Why not demand 100% pure helium? You are
moving the goalposts for no rational reason.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-18 Thread Jed Rothwell

Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:


 From Dr. Melvin Miles:

 *Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4
 measurements.  The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in
 highly accurate helium measurements.  The DOI lab in Texas could easily
 measure 1 ppb.  The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with
 an accuracy of 0.1 ppb.*


Miles wrote this in his papers, and I repeated it in my review. Jones
should not raise objections that were answered 24 years ago. He should
review the literature more carefully before making statements about it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-18 Thread Ruby


On 9/18/14, 6:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR 
advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper 
question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science -- 
not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a 
proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes 
that goes against the grain.


At some point, we have to have confidence in the results from a lab.  
Dr. Miles has defended his results successfully from all sides, and pays 
attention to details to do it.  As a former Navy scientist, he had 
access to what he needed.  He does not state conclusions lightly.


For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas 
overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. 
But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being 
made, and we should have that report in a matter of months.
That is your prerogative. However, the fact the the heat-helium 
correlation has been made multiple times since Miles' work, should 
factor into anyone's thinking on the matter.  In particular, the work 
SRI did is exemplary.   The correlation is strong.  In any other field, 
this would be clearly seen as fact.


In cold fusion, it seems the lack of discipline, the lack of historical 
knowledge, the lack of knowledge of the experimental data, combined with 
the euphoria of social media, allows any unfounded criticism to be 
amplified beyond it's usefulness.


The think I find most alarming is the circle the wagons mentality 
that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno's work. 
It is anti-scientific and counter-productive.


Neither I or Miles have said anything about Mizuno.  I am not sure who 
is circling the wagons.  To quell confusion in the minds of lurkers, 
and those who might positively contribute to the field, I am setting the 
record straight:  heat and helium are correlated for Pd-D systems by 
professional scientists from agencies and institutes who've successfully 
defended their work for over two decades.


What is means is there is a clear nuclear effect from safe, table-top 
cells.  And when deuterium is the fuel, helium is a result, a result 
that correlates with the mass-energy expected from DD fusion.  This does 
not point to any particular theory, only a correlation of effects.


See pages 86-91 in Storms' The Science of LENR published 2007 by World 
Scientific for the historical facts on the heat-helium correlation, a 
very real and documented effect. 
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425


I will end my participation in this discussion here.  It's back to work 
for me, again.  Sigh.


I wish you success in your research efforts, Jones.

Ruby


*From:*Ruby


From Dr. Melvin Miles:

/Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 
measurements.  The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized 
in highly accurate helium measurements.  The DOI lab in Texas could 
easily measure 1 ppb.  The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even 
better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb./


Ruby




--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-18 Thread H Veeder



 On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 


 Miles knew the history of the samples, but he did not tell the groups
 operating the mass spectrometers.

 Miles described this in his papers, and I described it in my review:

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

 I suggest you review the review.





I read it and was impressed until I became confused by the statistical
analysis discussion on page eight.
On the one hand you said the duds did not produce any sign of helium above
ground:



*Electrolysis power levels during dud runs were raised and
loweredconsiderably, from a half-watt to two watts, with no measurable
effect on the heliumbackground,*

but
then you quote Miles,




*For our 33 experiments involving heat and helium measurements, excess heat
was measuredin 21 cases and excess helium was observed in 18 studies. Thus
12 experiments yielded noexcess heat and 15 measurements gave no excess
helium.*


You pointed out in an earlier post that he did not know before hand which
were dud cells and which active cells so that means the 33 trials include
both dud cells and active cells.  If so this implies that some dud cells
did produce excess helium since he does not say the 18 cases which produced
helium were only associated with the 21 cells which produced excess heat.

The validity of his subsequent statistical argument that these numbers
constitute evidence of a strong statistical correlation of heat to helium
is impossible to gauge unless we are told how many of the dud cells showed
helium:



*If one uses these experimental results as random probabilities of P(heat)
= 21/33 for excess heat and P(He) = 18/33 for excess **helium, then the
probability of random agreement (Pa) for our heat and *
*helium measurements *
*would be . . . 0.512, and the probability of random disagreement (Pd)
would be . . . 0.488. **The presence or absence of excess heat was always
recorded prior to the helium *
*measurement and was not communicated to the helium laboratory. [The ìblind
testî *
*procedure.] Based on our experimental results, the random probability of
the helium *
*measurement correlating with the calorimetric measurement is not exactly
one-half. This is *
*analogous to flipping a weighted coin where heads are more probable than
tails. The *
*probability of exactly three mismatches in 33 experiments, therefore,
would be . . . 1.203 × *
*10^-6 . . . *
*The total probability of three or less mismatches in 33 studies would be .
. . 1/750,000 . . . *
*Furthermore, it is very unlikely that random errors would consistently
yield helium-4 *
*production rates in the appropriate range of 1011 - 1012 atoms/s per watt
of excess power . . . *

Harry

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Bob Higgins

Regarding exploding deuterium loaded wires ...

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 But you do admit, one would hope, that deuterium loaded wires, which is a

condensed matter environment, following a high amp pulse from a 2000v cap –

and no plasma anywhere at the start - will produce lots of hot fusion, even

though the deuterons were essentially stationary and extremely dense, and

even if the wire was cold as ice.


I am not a study of capacitive discharge exploded deuterium loaded wires.
 From what I know of the subject, the discharge results in the evaporation
of the wire and the formation of a short term plasma.  Given the wire is
pre-loaded with deuterium, the deuterium would be a part of that plasma.  I
don't think I have seen any reports which time the neutron burst to before
plasma or during plasma.  However, given that neutron bursts are seen, it
is likely the fusion occurs during plasma, making this not a condensed
matter fusion, but a simple 2-body kinetic ion-ion (hot) fusion with the
corresponding branching ratios of hot fusion.  In this case, the wire is
nothing but a storage medium for the deuterium, like the pellets in
inertial confinement fusion.  No one would call the inertial confinement
fusion cold fusion just because the target is initially in a condensed
matter state.

Do you have a paper describing the timing of neutron output to plasma
formation?  Do you have anything that would suggest that the fusion is
occurring in the condensed matter prior to the condensed matter being
evaporated and turned into a plasma?

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Bob Cook

Bob--

Your logic about cap-discharge at 2000 volts seems correct to me. However, it
does not explain the SPAWAR experience where hot alphas were seen in a regular
Pd electrode unless the local electric field at defects in the Pd electrode
(sharp cracks etc) produced hot D particles at the start and hot fusion
occurred to cause the reaction to proceed. I do not believe SPAWAR's
experiments were shielded to protect against fast neutrons or gammas however.
I may be wrong in the existence of shielding.

The following is a link to a report of the SPAWAR experiments. If you have not
watched it, I would recommend it.

http://www.ecoinventions.ca/twenty-year-history-of-lattice-enabled-nuclear-reactions-lenr-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Regarding exploding deuterium loaded wires ...

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

But you do admit, one would hope, that deuterium loaded wires, which is a
condensed matter environment, following a high amp pulse from a 2000v cap
–
and no plasma anywhere at the start - will produce lots of hot fusion,
even
though the deuterons were essentially stationary and extremely dense, and
even if the wire was cold as ice.

I am not a study of capacitive discharge exploded deuterium loaded wires.
From what I know of the subject, the discharge results in the evaporation of
the wire and the formation of a short term plasma. Given the wire is
pre-loaded with deuterium, the deuterium would be a part of that plasma. I
don't think I have seen any reports which time the neutron burst to before
plasma or during plasma. However, given that neutron bursts are seen, it is
likely the fusion occurs during plasma, making this not a condensed matter
fusion, but a simple 2-body kinetic ion-ion (hot) fusion with the corresponding
branching ratios of hot fusion. In this case, the wire is nothing but a
storage medium for the deuterium, like the pellets in inertial confinement
fusion. No one would call the inertial confinement fusion cold fusion just
because the target is initially in a condensed matter state.

Do you have a paper describing the timing of neutron output to plasma
formation? Do you have anything that would suggest that the fusion is
occurring in the condensed matter prior to the condensed matter being
evaporated and turned into a plasma?

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

Here is a paper by Miles describing some of the details of the instruments
such as the signal to noise ratios, detection limits, atmospheric helium,
etc.:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Axil Axil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

Exploding wires are used in z pinch fusion, A external magnetic field is
used to aid the formation of the plasma ball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_plasma_focus

Focused fusion also uses a magnetic field from an external magnet to twist
the plasmoid plasma ball into a tight structure.

In these technologies, it is inertial confinement of plasma that produces
the hot fusion results. This type of fusion production is far from break
even.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Here is a paper by Miles describing some of the details of the instruments
 such as the signal to noise ratios, detection limits, atmospheric helium,
 etc.:

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Ruby


On 9/16/14, 8:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

Wow. This is a stunner.
Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person.  
To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not 
only is Melvin Miles incompetent,  but so are the researchers from the 
numerous  (16?)  other studies confirming this effect as well.  Are you, 
in fact, basing your opinion on only one result?


Miles has successfully defended his work against the strongest assaults 
from pseudo-skeptics for two decades.  He has no reason to debate this 
issue further, as careful as he was to be sure there were no 
contaminative leaks.  If you are secretly reading an insular CMNS 
forum of scientists, then you would know the response of one member who 
said, essentially, that in any other field of science, these results 
would be unquestionable.  But because it's cold fusion, anything goes.


 Miles responded privately, and I do have permission to post this note:

/This is nothing new.  My helium-4 results were always reported in ppb 
and not ppm.   I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which 
metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and 
then only contaminate those particular flasks.  The control experiments 
with no excess heat gave a consistent mean helium-4 level of 4.5+-0.5 
ppb.  The flasks with excess heat were significantly higher in helium-4 
, and the ppb levels were in reasonable agreement with amounts expected 
for the excess power that was measured.//

--Melvin Miles//
/
Back to work,
Ruby/
/

I'm not on CMNS because of their policy of insularity - so I cannot verify
that the following message actually appeared, but it seems to be further
devastation to the widely held notion that helium and excess heat can be
well-correlated in LENR, even though it comes from only one proponent. He
was a prime proponent - and his posting shows the underlying foundation
is/was built on sand.

In fact, this almost proves to me that there is no correlation, or even
negative correlation - when it had been used to show the opposite. That's
right - this is better proof of NO HELIUM from fusion - than of a direct
correlation. And worse, Miles has been called the gold standard by a few
proponents. Apparently some were confused by the difference between million
and billion.

BTW, I did not get this from Krivit, but it shows that he may be largely
correct on his unpopular stance on helium. And I hate to admit that, because
Steve is wrong on a number of other issues IMHO - particularly on
Widom/Larsen and his insistence that Rossi is a scammer. Yet, I for one owe
Steve Krivit an apology, since he did stick his neck out on the helium issue
- and he seems to be largely correct - or at least more right than wrong.

From M. Miles: I want to respond to various comments about my China Lake
(Navy) results from 1990-1994 about the heat and helium correlations.
Someone commented that it would have been better if I had found helium-4 in
the electrolysis gases at levels greater than the helium-4 content normally
in air (5.22 ppm).

I agree that higher excess power levels would have been nice, but we had to
live with the excess power that was actually measured.  However, it is
unrealistic to expect helium-4 levels in the electrolysis gases via fusion
greater than the 5.22 ppm found naturally in air for our open calorimetric
system. (Our  system was not open directly to  the atmosphere, but the
electrolysis gases escaped via an oil bubbler that prevented the back-flow
of air).

My calculations show that D + D fusion to form helium-4 would produce
11.2 ppb (Billion!-not million) of helium-4 in the electrolysis gases per
0.100 W of excess power using a typical electrolysis current of I = 500
mA (See  page 32 of my final Navy report, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, September 1996).
Therefore, the production of helium-4 exactly equal to the 5.22 ppm in air
would have required an excess power of 46 W.  Such a large excess power
would have immediately driven my cell to boiling, depleted the cell
contents, and ended the experiment.

It is almost unbelievable that a few regular posters on CMNS would say that
Miles work is proof of a good correlation, when it actually appears to show
that all - 100% - of the helium measured could easily have diffused into
system from the outside. I suspect that most of the other reports have the
same or a similar underlying problem - they have not taken into account the
high levels of helium in Laboratories where MS is routinely practiced.
Helium concentration can be 1000 times more than what has been measured. One
will often see a high pressure helium tank within feet of the instrument
itself.

This is supposed to be a science forum, where experiment rules, not a
slap-on-the-back old boys club where past false notions live on, well beyond
their predictive value and instead actually become counter-productive to
progress. Isn't it about time that we either abandon or downplay the entire

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Jones Beene

From: Ruby 

 

Wow. This is a stunner. 

 

*  Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person.
To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only
is Melvin Miles incompetent,  but so are the researchers from the numerous
(16?)  other studies confirming this effect as well.  Are you, in fact,
basing your opinion on only one result?

 

Ruby - you should talk to Krivit, not me. Although not a scientist, Krivit
has done a decent job of looking into this with a critical eye, more so than
anyone here, including Jed Rothwell. 

 

I'm not comfortable being critical of Miles, who is a fine researcher. And
my opinion is not based on anyone's incompetence nor is it based on any
particular result - but on a down-to-earth understanding of mass
spectrometers and what the specification and error limits actually are, and
in looking at all the ways that mistakes can be made at these extremes. It's
pretty basic. The challenge of this kind of measurement was always too great
to handle on a small budget, and still is- when the resources are limited. 

 

Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure there
are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are talking
about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of this work
was done a decade ago. Miles was up against an intractable problem and we
should thank him for being completely up front about it.

 

But let's not forget he is talking about a few PARTS PER BILLION. It does
not matter how well or how many times you calibrate - there is no acceptable
measurement technique which can derive accuracy at this kind of helium
dilution. None of the other 16, 18 or whatever number of measurements -
which have purportedly taken place, were robust enough to have made the
amount of helium which is needed in order to get the dilution level up to
ppm. without extreme enrichment, and that is where the problem lies. 

 

Getting the He/D2 ratio higher prior to measurement is what few want to talk
about in detail. To make things worse, much worse - there is a technique for
bringing samples up from ppb to ppm which is called gettering or NEG (non
evaporable gettering). It can introduce order of magnitude errors.

 

Gettering can inaccuracy since what is being done is to selectively remove
over 99% of the gas in the sample, in order to enrich by at least 1000 fold
(in the worst case). In doing this, the ways to assess how much of the
unwanted gas (deuterium) is removed as a ratio is by pressure or mass or
subsequent boil-off release from the getter etc. None of these is
satisfactory since they have high error additions of their own, and the mass
of the getter is far greater than the gas mass removed. Without knowing the
level of enrichment, it is all an educated guess. Gettering should never be
used to raise ppb to ppm. Period.

 

Moreover - deuterium has an inversion temperature, which has not been
accounted for properly. Some of these researchers have never mentioned
inversion temperature AFAIK nor stated exactly how the gettering was
calibrated to insure accuracy. When Fred Sparber first brought-up inversion
temperature as a possible source of error - years ago, he was routinely
ignored and criticized by everyone especially the main proponents of the
heat-helium correlation. 

 

In short, this heat-helium correlation seems to be a insider fiction or myth
which has taken on a life of its own. It is almost like a pseudo-religious
doctrine. having some basis in fact but not much.

 

However, admittedly, if (big if) Mizuno does indeed come out with
measurements in November which support the heat-helium conclusion - then you
will see me and maybe even Krivit instantly change horses - since Mizuno is
the only game in town these days for LENR at the kilowatt level - 

 

. which is the level where you will NOT NEED ENRICHMENT to see helium, if
there is any. 

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones needs to tone down the rhetoric, but I will mention another
possibility which hopefully will not be taken the wrong way.

It is well known fact that experimenters can be honest and competent but
because of their bias they can still unwittingly influence the outcome of
an experiment which is why blind and double blind experiments are sometimes
necessary.

A blind or blinded experiment is an experiment in which information about
the test that might lead to bias in the results is concealed from the
tester, the subject, or both until after the test.[1] Bias may be
intentional or unconscious. If both tester and subject are blinded, the
trial is a double-blind trial.
-- from the wikipedia entry on _blind experiment_ which provides an example
of how blind protocols have been used in physics.

Miles states *I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which
metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and
then only contaminate those particular flasks*. Of course the atmospheric
helium could not know the difference but if Miles knew the difference then
this knowledge combined with bias could have led to subtle differences
between how the the control and active experiments were set up. Perhaps
more care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during the control runs
or less care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during the active run.

Harry

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:

  On 9/16/14, 8:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 Wow. This is a stunner.

  Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person.
 To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only
 is Melvin Miles incompetent,  but so are the researchers from the numerous
 (16?)  other studies confirming this effect as well.  Are you, in fact,
 basing your opinion on only one result?

 Miles has successfully defended his work against the strongest assaults
 from pseudo-skeptics for two decades.  He has no reason to debate this
 issue further, as careful as he was to be sure there were no contaminative
 leaks.  If you are secretly reading an insular CMNS forum of scientists,
 then you would know the response of one member who said, essentially, that
 in any other field of science, these results would be unquestionable.  But
 because it's cold fusion, anything goes.

  Miles responded privately, and I do have permission to post this note:

 *This is nothing new.  My helium-4 results were always reported in ppb
 and not ppm.   I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which
 metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and
 then only contaminate those particular flasks.  The control experiments
 with no excess heat gave a consistent mean helium-4 level of 4.5+-0.5 ppb.
 The flasks with excess heat were significantly higher in helium-4 , and the
 ppb levels were in reasonable agreement with amounts expected for the
 excess power that was measured.*
 * --Melvin Miles*

 Back to work,
 Ruby

 I'm not on CMNS because of their policy of insularity - so I cannot verify
 that the following message actually appeared, but it seems to be further
 devastation to the widely held notion that helium and excess heat can be
 well-correlated in LENR, even though it comes from only one proponent. He
 was a prime proponent - and his posting shows the underlying foundation
 is/was built on sand.

 In fact, this almost proves to me that there is no correlation, or even
 negative correlation - when it had been used to show the opposite. That's
 right - this is better proof of NO HELIUM from fusion - than of a direct
 correlation. And worse, Miles has been called the gold standard by a few
 proponents. Apparently some were confused by the difference between million
 and billion.

 BTW, I did not get this from Krivit, but it shows that he may be largely
 correct on his unpopular stance on helium. And I hate to admit that, because
 Steve is wrong on a number of other issues IMHO - particularly on
 Widom/Larsen and his insistence that Rossi is a scammer. Yet, I for one owe
 Steve Krivit an apology, since he did stick his neck out on the helium issue
 - and he seems to be largely correct - or at least more right than wrong.

 From M. Miles: I want to respond to various comments about my China Lake
 (Navy) results from 1990-1994 about the heat and helium correlations.
 Someone commented that it would have been better if I had found helium-4 in
 the electrolysis gases at levels greater than the helium-4 content normally
 in air (5.22 ppm).

 I agree that higher excess power levels would have been nice, but we had to
 live with the excess power that was actually measured.  However, it is
 unrealistic to expect helium-4 levels in the electrolysis gases via fusion
 greater than the 5.22 ppm found naturally in air for our open calorimetric
 system. (Our  system was not open directly to  the atmosphere, but the
 electrolysis gases escaped via an oil bubbler

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is well known fact that experimenters can be honest and competent but
 because of their bias they can still unwittingly influence the outcome of
 an experiment which is why blind and double blind experiments are sometimes
 necessary.


This was a blind test. The three groups measuring the helium had no idea
what the history of each experiment was, or whether it produced excess
heat. He also sent them samples of lab air an other samples unrelated to
the experiments. The flask labels were coded.

Miles knew the history of the samples, but he did not tell the groups
operating the mass spectrometers.

Miles described this in his papers, and I described it in my review:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

I suggest you review the review.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Jed Rothwell

H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Perhaps more care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during the
 control runs or less care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during
 the active run.


That is impossible. In most cases there was no way to know ahead of time
what was a control run, and what was an active run. Control runs consisted
of tests with no electrolysis (which he could tell was a control), tests
with hydrogen (which he assumed would produce no heat, but that wasn't a
sure thing), and -- in most cases -- Pd-D tests that failed to produce heat
(which no one could predict).

In any case, as I said before, there is no way anyone can accidentally or
purposefully leak into the cell just the right amount of helium to make it
equal to plasma fusion helium. Any method would be hundreds to thousands of
times too crude, producing random numbers. The amounts are far smaller than
any instrument could introduce accurately.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread James Bowery

The standard procedure to deal with this kind of unconscious bias is
multiple independent replications.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jones needs to tone down the rhetoric, but I will mention another
 possibility which hopefully will not be taken the wrong way.

 It is well known fact that experimenters can be honest and competent but
 because of their bias they can still unwittingly influence the outcome of
 an experiment which is why blind and double blind experiments are sometimes
 necessary.

 A blind or blinded experiment is an experiment in which information
 about the test that might lead to bias in the results is concealed from the
 tester, the subject, or both until after the test.[1] Bias may be
 intentional or unconscious. If both tester and subject are blinded, the
 trial is a double-blind trial.
 -- from the wikipedia entry on _blind experiment_ which provides an
 example of how blind protocols have been used in physics.

 Miles states *I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which
 metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and
 then only contaminate those particular flasks*. Of course the
 atmospheric helium could not know the difference but if Miles knew the
 difference then this knowledge combined with bias could have led to subtle
 differences between how the the control and active experiments were set up.
 Perhaps more care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during the
 control runs or less care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during
 the active run.

 Harry

 On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:

  On 9/16/14, 8:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

 Wow. This is a stunner.

  Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person.
 To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only
 is Melvin Miles incompetent,  but so are the researchers from the numerous
 (16?)  other studies confirming this effect as well.  Are you, in fact,
 basing your opinion on only one result?

 Miles has successfully defended his work against the strongest assaults
 from pseudo-skeptics for two decades.  He has no reason to debate this
 issue further, as careful as he was to be sure there were no contaminative
 leaks.  If you are secretly reading an insular CMNS forum of scientists,
 then you would know the response of one member who said, essentially, that
 in any other field of science, these results would be unquestionable.  But
 because it's cold fusion, anything goes.

  Miles responded privately, and I do have permission to post this note:

 *This is nothing new.  My helium-4 results were always reported in ppb
 and not ppm.   I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which
 metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and
 then only contaminate those particular flasks.  The control experiments
 with no excess heat gave a consistent mean helium-4 level of 4.5+-0.5 ppb.
 The flasks with excess heat were significantly higher in helium-4 , and the
 ppb levels were in reasonable agreement with amounts expected for the
 excess power that was measured.*
 * --Melvin Miles*

 Back to work,
 Ruby

 I'm not on CMNS because of their policy of insularity - so I cannot verify
 that the following message actually appeared, but it seems to be further
 devastation to the widely held notion that helium and excess heat can be
 well-correlated in LENR, even though it comes from only one proponent. He
 was a prime proponent - and his posting shows the underlying foundation
 is/was built on sand.

 In fact, this almost proves to me that there is no correlation, or even
 negative correlation - when it had been used to show the opposite. That's
 right - this is better proof of NO HELIUM from fusion - than of a direct
 correlation. And worse, Miles has been called the gold standard by a few
 proponents. Apparently some were confused by the difference between million
 and billion.

 BTW, I did not get this from Krivit, but it shows that he may be largely
 correct on his unpopular stance on helium. And I hate to admit that, because
 Steve is wrong on a number of other issues IMHO - particularly on
 Widom/Larsen and his insistence that Rossi is a scammer. Yet, I for one owe
 Steve Krivit an apology, since he did stick his neck out on the helium issue
 - and he seems to be largely correct - or at least more right than wrong.

 From M. Miles: I want to respond to various comments about my China Lake
 (Navy) results from 1990-1994 about the heat and helium correlations.
 Someone commented that it would have been better if I had found helium-4 in
 the electrolysis gases at levels greater than the helium-4 content normally
 in air (5.22 ppm).

 I agree that higher excess power levels would have been nice, but we had to
 live with the excess power that was actually measured.  However, it is
 unrealistic to expect helium-4 levels in the electrolysis gases via

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

ok, I did not know he did not know before hand which cell was going to be
active.

Harry

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Perhaps more care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during the
 control runs or less care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during
 the active run.


 That is impossible. In most cases there was no way to know ahead of time
 what was a control run, and what was an active run. Control runs consisted
 of tests with no electrolysis (which he could tell was a control), tests
 with hydrogen (which he assumed would produce no heat, but that wasn't a
 sure thing), and -- in most cases -- Pd-D tests that failed to produce heat
 (which no one could predict).

 In any case, as I said before, there is no way anyone can accidentally or
 purposefully leak into the cell just the right amount of helium to make it
 equal to plasma fusion helium. Any method would be hundreds to thousands of
 times too crude, producing random numbers. The amounts are far smaller than
 any instrument could introduce accurately.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is well known fact that experimenters can be honest and competent but
 because of their bias they can still unwittingly influence the outcome of
 an experiment which is why blind and double blind experiments are sometimes
 necessary.


 This was a blind test. The three groups measuring the helium had no idea
 what the history of each experiment was, or whether it produced excess
 heat. He also sent them samples of lab air an other samples unrelated to
 the experiments. The flask labels were coded.


This part I knew. I wasn't sure if knew before hand which cell was going
to be active, but you made that clear that he could not have known.





 Miles knew the history of the samples, but he did not tell the groups
 operating the mass spectrometers.

 Miles described this in his papers, and I described it in my review:

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

 I suggest you review the review.


will do.

Harry



 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 However, admittedly, if (big if) Mizuno does indeed come out with
 measurements in November which support the heat-helium conclusion – then
 you will see me and maybe even Krivit instantly change horses – since
 Mizuno is the only game in town these days for LENR at the kilowatt level –



 … which is the level where you will NOT NEED ENRICHMENT to see helium, if
 there is any.





 Hopefully the results will fall into one of three categories:
1) The amount of helium does not exceed background levels.
2) The amount of helium is clearly well above background levels but it is
also clearly far below the amount expected from fusion.
3) The amount of helium is clearly consistent with the amount expected from
fusion.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-17 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:

 ... These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person.  To
 deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only is
 Melvin Miles incompetent,  but so are the researchers from the numerous
 (16?)  other studies confirming this effect as well.


Miles is one researcher whose work showed good evidence of a correlation of
4He generation with excess heat in a PdD system.  There were other
researchers who also produced evidence of a correlation of 4He with heat,
and on an order compatible with a nuclear reaction of some kind.  The 4He
connection is only one of several lines of evidence that make an
unambiguous case that there's something nuclear going on in the PdD system.
 It is incumbent upon anyone who would overthrow the years of research that
have been done to establish a nuclear reaction to do the hard work of
reading the actual papers.  There's the chance I suppose that all of that
work will have been for naught, but to show that this is the case, one has
a lot of homework to do.

With the NiH and NiD systems, we know a lot less.  We're obviously all
glued to our televisions and radios waiting to hear what's next.
 Personally, I find the bits and pieces that have leaked out here and there
tantalizing evidence for a nuclear process of some kind.  But what we have
to work with is far from being rigorous science, so the engineers amongst
us do what engineers love doing, which is to reverse engineer something on
the basis of whatever information we have.  And doing that effectively
requires an open mind, a learning attitude, a willingness to entertain
hypotheticals and a willingness to allow others the same latitude.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread Foks0904 .

Jones -- Posting private correspondences is a quasi-childish thing to do,
something Krivit specializes in. You're not blowing the lid off some
amazing story. I'm pretty sure that's also how Krivit rationalized every
distasteful decision he's made.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Wow. This is a stunner.

 I'm not on CMNS because of their policy of insularity - so I cannot verify
 that the following message actually appeared, but it seems to be further
 devastation to the widely held notion that helium and excess heat can be
 well-correlated in LENR, even though it comes from only one proponent. He
 was a prime proponent - and his posting shows the underlying foundation
 is/was built on sand.

 In fact, this almost proves to me that there is no correlation, or even
 negative correlation - when it had been used to show the opposite. That's
 right - this is better proof of NO HELIUM from fusion - than of a direct
 correlation. And worse, Miles has been called the gold standard by a few
 proponents. Apparently some were confused by the difference between million
 and billion.

 BTW, I did not get this from Krivit, but it shows that he may be largely
 correct on his unpopular stance on helium. And I hate to admit that,
 because
 Steve is wrong on a number of other issues IMHO - particularly on
 Widom/Larsen and his insistence that Rossi is a scammer. Yet, I for one owe
 Steve Krivit an apology, since he did stick his neck out on the helium
 issue
 - and he seems to be largely correct - or at least more right than wrong.

 From M. Miles: I want to respond to various comments about my China Lake
 (Navy) results from 1990-1994 about the heat and helium correlations.
 Someone commented that it would have been better if I had found helium-4 in
 the electrolysis gases at levels greater than the helium-4 content normally
 in air (5.22 ppm).

 I agree that higher excess power levels would have been nice, but we had
 to
 live with the excess power that was actually measured.  However, it is
 unrealistic to expect helium-4 levels in the electrolysis gases via fusion
 greater than the 5.22 ppm found naturally in air for our open calorimetric
 system. (Our  system was not open directly to  the atmosphere, but the
 electrolysis gases escaped via an oil bubbler that prevented the back-flow
 of air).

 My calculations show that D + D fusion to form helium-4 would produce
 11.2 ppb (Billion!-not million) of helium-4 in the electrolysis gases per
 0.100 W of excess power using a typical electrolysis current of I = 500
 mA (See  page 32 of my final Navy report, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, September
 1996).
 Therefore, the production of helium-4 exactly equal to the 5.22 ppm in air
 would have required an excess power of 46 W.  Such a large excess power
 would have immediately driven my cell to boiling, depleted the cell
 contents, and ended the experiment.

 It is almost unbelievable that a few regular posters on CMNS would say that
 Miles work is proof of a good correlation, when it actually appears to show
 that all - 100% - of the helium measured could easily have diffused into
 system from the outside. I suspect that most of the other reports have the
 same or a similar underlying problem - they have not taken into account the
 high levels of helium in Laboratories where MS is routinely practiced.
 Helium concentration can be 1000 times more than what has been measured.
 One
 will often see a high pressure helium tank within feet of the instrument
 itself.

 This is supposed to be a science forum, where experiment rules, not a
 slap-on-the-back old boys club where past false notions live on, well
 beyond
 their predictive value and instead actually become counter-productive to
 progress. Isn't it about time that we either abandon or downplay the entire
 premise that LENR involves fusion without gamma radiation - when strong
 anomalous heat is seen?

 We are convinced of the excess heat - IT IS THERE - but there is precious
 little good evidence that nuclear fusion is responsible for it. There are a
 few experiments where tritium is seen which is good evidence. Transmutation
 is seen but it is thousands of times too low to be meaningful. In those
 cases the amount of tritium is tiny, or comes from high voltage (Claytor)
 and often there is no excess heat, so once again - we find this is a
 complex
 field with few absolutes. There is some small level of fusion happening, no
 doubt about QM - and there can be incidental helium in an experiment ...
 but
 this may come from low probability QM effects, since it is tiny and will
 not
 correlate with excess heat in a high energy output experiment.

 The field is at risk of losing it crown jewel - excess heat - to the
 insistence of a few proponents of a proved helium connection - by
 continuing
 to insist on any substantial level of fusion to helium, when there is so
 little good proof of fusion at all, other than the occasional trace
 tritium,
 or

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 It is almost unbelievable that a few regular posters on CMNS would say
 that Miles work is proof of a good correlation, when it actually appears to
 show that all - 100% - of the helium measured could easily have diffused
 into system from the outside.


That is completely wrong. It could not have diffused into the system from
the outside. Miles addressed this point many times in his papers and
lectures. A leak in from the outside would produce random levels of helium,
which would not correlate with anything, and which would be far above the
amounts that he actually measured. Even if you deliberately wanted to leak
in helium selectively it would not be possible to admit tiny amounts of
helium that happen to correlate with the expected values. There is no
instrument capable of leaking in just that much, and no more. It would be
hundreds of times too much even with the finest control.

Furthermore, he measured the amount leaking in from the outside, in null
experiments.

Also, he looked for argon, krypton and other atmospheric gases. He did not
find them in the portions that would come from a leak. Helium alone cannot
leak and without argon.

Furthermore, in some other experiments people began by admitting helium
into the collection flask such that that any additional helium from excess
heat would be well above atmospheric background.

I discussed this aspect of the Miles experiment in my review, in the
section titled Possibilities for error. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

You need to read the literature a little more carefully before jumping to
the conclusion that Miles made a mistake, or that he did not consider the
factors you point out.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:

Jones -- Posting private correspondences is a quasi-childish thing to do,
 something Krivit specializes in. You're not blowing the lid off some
 amazing story.


Well I do not see anything wrong with posting that. It does not seem
private to me. But as I said, all of these issues were addressed in the
literature by Miles, and also by McKubre and even by me. So I think that
before you blow off the lid you should check to see whether you are right
or wrong. In this case, the analysis is completely wrong.

By the way, Miles, McKubre and I patiently explained all this to Krivit. I
gave him links to my paper and to my sources -- would say the same thing
only with more detail in a more professional presentation. Krivit either
ignored us or he failed to understand what we were saying.

It is not really that complicated. It is easy to distinguish between a leak
and *in situ* production. Several techniques were employed to do this, and
they are listed in the papers. I trust that Jones will quickly see what I
am getting at here, and retract his statements.

By the way, Storms pointed out the same thing about tritium production. He
showed examples of what happens when you do add tritium from the outside,
deliberately. It does not look like the spontaneous production of tritium
in the cell. You cannot make it look like that. No instrument is capable of
doing that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

To correct some voice input errors:


Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.

I mean the atmospheric He to Ar ratio is fixed.


I gave him links to my paper and to my sources -- WHICH say the same thing
. . .

I did not make this stiff up, as Dave Barry used to say.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

This is of no small interest to me as I'm currently holding off on using up
one of my more influential contacts on Mills/BLP pending the resolution, in
my mind, of the He4/heat correlation issue relative to Mills.  The only
person I know of who has put forth an explanation for how hydrino formation
could result in an He4/heat correlation in which the heat matches that
expected from fusion to He4 ash
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg97315.html is Robin
van Spaandonk.  I have not yet had time to hunt down his explanation and
examine it.  The mainstream would ignore both the correlation and Mills but
if one is more intellectually honest than the mainstream, one has work to
do before coming to a conclusion about any of this.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 To correct some voice input errors:


 Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.

 I mean the atmospheric He to Ar ratio is fixed.


 I gave him links to my paper and to my sources -- WHICH say the same thing
 . . .

 I did not make this stiff up, as Dave Barry used to say.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told on my
blog.
Peter

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is of no small interest to me as I'm currently holding off on using
 up one of my more influential contacts on Mills/BLP pending the resolution,
 in my mind, of the He4/heat correlation issue relative to Mills.  The only
 person I know of who has put forth an explanation for how hydrino
 formation could result in an He4/heat correlation in which the heat matches
 that expected from fusion to He4 ash
 https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg97315.html is Robin
 van Spaandonk.  I have not yet had time to hunt down his explanation and
 examine it.  The mainstream would ignore both the correlation and Mills but
 if one is more intellectually honest than the mainstream, one has work to
 do before coming to a conclusion about any of this.

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 To correct some voice input errors:


 Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.

 I mean the atmospheric He to Ar ratio is fixed.


 I gave him links to my paper and to my sources -- WHICH say the same
 thing . . .

 I did not make this stiff up, as Dave Barry used to say.

 - Jed





-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told on my
 blog.


What second person? What do you mean?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

As I recall, SPAWARS (Naval Research) per Mosier-Boss etal., had good
justification for He ash in the Pd-D system. They were close to George Miley I
believe.

The following links are pertinent to SPAWAR effort:
http://coldfusioninformation.com/organisations/spawar/
http://www.ecoinventions.ca/twenty-year-history-of-lattice-enabled-nuclear-reactions-lenr-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Bob
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

This is of no small interest to me as I'm currently holding off on using up
one of my more influential contacts on Mills/BLP pending the resolution, in my
mind, of the He4/heat correlation issue relative to Mills. The only person I
know of who has put forth an explanation for how hydrino formation could result
in an He4/heat correlation in which the heat matches that expected from fusion
to He4 ash is Robin van Spaandonk. I have not yet had time to hunt down his
explanation and examine it. The mainstream would ignore both the correlation
and Mills but if one is more intellectually honest than the mainstream, one has
work to do before coming to a conclusion about any of this.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

To correct some voice input errors:

Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.

I mean the atmospheric He to Ar ratio is fixed.

I gave him links to my paper and to my sources -- WHICH say the same thing
. . .

I did not make this stiff up, as Dave Barry used to say.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jed
I answered to James, his hope is in Robin van Spaandonk.
to link hydrinos with He.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told on my
 blog.


 What second person? What do you mean?

 - Jed




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Jed Rothwell 


 Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.

 

Complete nonsense !

 

Helium has an enormous diffusion rate through Pyrex glass. Argon has almost 
none. Check the MIT site if you want a source.

 

Even if Argon could diffuse in, which it cannot – Grahams Law would mean the 
rate of diffusion was much higher for helium. You statement is complete naïve.

 I did not make this stiff up, as Dave Barry used to say.

 

Apparently you do make it up… or else you do not understand Grahams Law at a 
very minimum.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

According to Google, there is only one hit for helium and mills on the
egoout blog:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013_11_01_archive.html

and it does not contain any such theory.



On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jed
 I answered to James, his hope is in Robin van Spaandonk.
 to link hydrinos with He.

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told on
 my blog.


 What second person? What do you mean?

 - Jed




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

the absence of theory means Randy thinks NO connection.
To be discussed with him.
Peter

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 According to Google, there is only one hit for helium and mills on the
 egoout blog:

 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013_11_01_archive.html

 and it does not contain any such theory.



 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Jed
 I answered to James, his hope is in Robin van Spaandonk.
 to link hydrinos with He.

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told on
 my blog.


 What second person? What do you mean?

 - Jed




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

You are confusing me.  First you say that Mills, on your blog, was a person
other than Robin van Spaandonk to offer a theory explaining He ash in
amounts that match excess heat that is consistent with hydrino production
and then you _appear_ (poor grammar so hard tell) to say that Mills has no
such theory.

Which is it?

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 the absence of theory means Randy thinks NO connection.
 To be discussed with him.
 Peter

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 According to Google, there is only one hit for helium and mills on the
 egoout blog:

 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013_11_01_archive.html

 and it does not contain any such theory.



 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Jed
 I answered to James, his hope is in Robin van Spaandonk.
 to link hydrinos with He.

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told on
 my blog.


 What second person? What do you mean?

 - Jed




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

No sorry I have only told that you can ask Mills. Not more not less. But he
is against any connection of hydrinos with CF, LENR. Sorry for the
confusion.
Peter

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 You are confusing me.  First you say that Mills, on your blog, was a
 person other than Robin van Spaandonk to offer a theory explaining He ash
 in amounts that match excess heat that is consistent with hydrino
 production and then you _appear_ (poor grammar so hard tell) to say that
 Mills has no such theory.

 Which is it?

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 the absence of theory means Randy thinks NO connection.
 To be discussed with him.
 Peter

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 According to Google, there is only one hit for helium and mills on the
 egoout blog:

 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013_11_01_archive.html

 and it does not contain any such theory.



 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Jed
 I answered to James, his hope is in Robin van Spaandonk.
 to link hydrinos with He.

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told
 on my blog.


 What second person? What do you mean?

 - Jed




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


  Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.



 Complete nonsense !



 Helium has an enormous diffusion rate through Pyrex glass. Argon has
 almost none. Check the MIT site if you want a source.



First, he was not using Pyrex glass; he used steel collection flasks.

Second, whatever the diffusion rate for the different gasses may be, for
different materials, it is constant. That is how MIT was able to measure
them. You can measure the ratio by letting air diffuse in a null
experiment. Then you know what the ratio should be for a leak. That is what
Miles and others have done.

Miles and others have done these experiments for 25 years. Previous to that
people did similar experiments. Miles and these other experts were aware of
all of the objections you have raised. They answered them. There is no
chance you will come up with some glaring error which they overlooked, such
as a leak. Anyone doing this experiment or thinking about it will
immediately see that an air leak might be a problem, and will take steps to
ensure this is not an issue.

I think there is no chance you will come up with any error, glaring or
subtle.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

I will save anyone the trouble of asking Mills. 

 

He absolutely and unequivocally says that there is no helium formation as a 
result of the hydrino reaction.

 

Robin and others have tried to plow a pathway between LENR and BLP with the 
suggestion that hydrinos could facilitate the fusion reaction, and that 
hypothesis does make sense - but only if you are convinced of fusion as the end 
result. 

 

The bottom line - even if f/H could facilitate fusion – there would be some 
gamma radiation. All of that gamma radiation cannot be hidden, especially not 
in an “invented” channel, which is not known to exist in physics anyway. 

 

Since there is almost no gamma radiation in LENR, there is almost no fusion in 
LENR. It’s really not that complicated.

 

Jones

 

From: Peter Gluck 

 

No sorry I have only told that you can ask Mills. Not more not less. But he is 
against any connection of hydrinos with CF, LENR. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Peter

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

I am excruciatingly aware that Mills denies not only that there is no
connection between hydrinos and He ash in amounts consistent with excess
heat -- but that he denies that such He ash even exists.  In the absence of
another explanatory theory, such as Robin van Spaandonk's, either one of
those denials is sufficient, in my mind, to discredit Mills in the event
that He ash actually does show up in amounts consistent with excess heat:
 One too-many 'miracles'.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 No sorry I have only told that you can ask Mills. Not more not less. But
 he is against any connection of hydrinos with CF, LENR. Sorry for the
 confusion.
 Peter

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 You are confusing me.  First you say that Mills, on your blog, was a
 person other than Robin van Spaandonk to offer a theory explaining He ash
 in amounts that match excess heat that is consistent with hydrino
 production and then you _appear_ (poor grammar so hard tell) to say that
 Mills has no such theory.

 Which is it?

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 the absence of theory means Randy thinks NO connection.
 To be discussed with him.
 Peter

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 According to Google, there is only one hit for helium and mills on the
 egoout blog:

 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013_11_01_archive.html

 and it does not contain any such theory.



 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Jed
 I answered to James, his hope is in Robin van Spaandonk.
 to link hydrinos with He.

 On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The second person could be Randy Mills himself- see what he has told
 on my blog.


 What second person? What do you mean?

 - Jed




 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com





 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  The bottom line - even if f/H could facilitate fusion



Notation question:

Does f/H mean fractional Rydberg states of hydrogen?

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Jed Rothwell 

*Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon. 
Complete nonsense !
Helium has an enormous diffusion rate through Pyrex glass.
Argon has almost none. Check the MIT site if you want a source.
*   First, he was not using Pyrex glass; he used steel collection
flasks.

For the collection flasks he could have used anything. It was too late. 

Helium diffuses into the electrolysis cell itself during the operation.

Second, whatever the diffusion rate for the different gasses
may be, for different materials, it is constant.

No. Again – please try to understand Grahams Law. Apparently you have never
heard of it before now.

Diffusion is based on amu. Argon is 10 times heaver than helium and it
diffuses much more slowly through a material - when both can be diffused.
However, argon does not diffuse into Pyrex at all and helium does.

Jones


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 For the collection flasks he could have used anything. It was too late.

 Helium diffuses into the electrolysis cell itself during the operation.


Yes, some does come in. This amount can be measured in a null experiment.
It is the background amount. As it happens, Miles had many null experiments
with no heat.



 Diffusion is based on amu. Argon is 10 times heaver than helium and it
 diffuses much more slowly through a material - when both can be diffused.
 However, argon does not diffuse into Pyrex at all and helium does.


As I said, he looked for other gasses as well, and he looked for the
overall amount of helium, which is to say the amount that diffuses in when
you do nothing (let the cell sit there), or when you conduct electrolysis
but there is no excess heat. When there is no excess heat the amount that
diffuses in is always much less than what is measured after there is excess
heat. In other words excess heat produces significantly more than the
background from diffusion, but much less than the atmospheric background.

Other objections have been raised and met. For example, some people said
that perhaps the excess heat changed conditions and allowed more helium to
defuse in. As Miles pointed out, and as I repeated in my report, this
cannot be the case because in some tests with no excess heat the overall
input power was greater than the positive tests, and the cell was hotter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation


Jones--

I think you are correct about the differences between He and Argon diffusion 
rates.  I think the diameter of the diffusing entity in question is also 
important.  The bigger the diameter the slower the diffusion, if it is 
possible at all in any given medium.  The temperature of the medium can also 
change diffusion rate for any given entity.


Bob

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation


From: Jed Rothwell

* Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.
Complete nonsense !
Helium has an enormous diffusion rate through Pyrex glass.
Argon has almost none. Check the MIT site if you want a source.
* First, he was not using Pyrex glass; he used steel collection
flasks.

For the collection flasks he could have used anything. It was too late.

Helium diffuses into the electrolysis cell itself during the operation.

Second, whatever the diffusion rate for the different gasses
may be, for different materials, it is constant.

No. Again – please try to understand Grahams Law. Apparently you have never
heard of it before now.

Diffusion is based on amu. Argon is 10 times heaver than helium and it
diffuses much more slowly through a material - when both can be diffused.
However, argon does not diffuse into Pyrex at all and helium does.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

I’m sorry but that is not what Miles seems to be saying now. You are putting 
words in his mouth. In any event, the rate measured is incredibly low – well 
below any confidence level and well below atmospheric levels - so it is of 
negligible value. It is milliwatt level, in a world begging for kilowatts.

 

IMO - the only result that matters to most of Science, going forward, will be 
the result of experiments of greater than 10 watts, and hopefully 100 watts or 
more. 

 

AFAIK – Mizuno is the only player in this game in 2014, insofar as the putative 
fusion of deuterium at the 100 watt level is concerned. His results on this 
issue of helium, or lack thereof, will stand out as of highest importance - 
since it could well be the case that QM allows a small level of fusion at 
extremely low levels but with a reverse economy of scale that prevents it above 
the watt level.

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

 

For the collection flasks he could have used anything. It was too late.

Helium diffuses into the electrolysis cell itself during the operation.

 

Yes, some does come in. This amount can be measured in a null experiment. It is 
the background amount. As it happens, Miles had many null experiments with no 
heat.

 

 

Diffusion is based on amu. Argon is 10 times heaver than helium and it
diffuses much more slowly through a material - when both can be diffused.
However, argon does not diffuse into Pyrex at all and helium does.

 

As I said, he looked for other gasses as well, and he looked for the overall 
amount of helium, which is to say the amount that diffuses in when you do 
nothing (let the cell sit there), or when you conduct electrolysis but there is 
no excess heat. When there is no excess heat the amount that diffuses in is 
always much less than what is measured after there is excess heat. In other 
words excess heat produces significantly more than the background from 
diffusion, but much less than the atmospheric background.

 

Other objections have been raised and met. For example, some people said that 
perhaps the excess heat changed conditions and allowed more helium to defuse 
in. As Miles pointed out, and as I repeated in my report, this cannot be the 
case because in some tests with no excess heat the overall input power was 
greater than the positive tests, and the cell was hotter.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread Bob Higgins

Jones, You are making specious arguments that are below the quality level
of your posts.

Yes, you are correct and Jed is correct in the arguments that the diffusion
of He and Argon in Miles' experiments are essentially constants - note the
(s)!  When the amount on the inside and outside are far from equilibrium,
each gas will diffuse with its own constant (actually it is an exponential
constant for each).  Jed is correct that diffusion from the outside would
provide a clear set of constant rates in the blind experiments and the ones
with excess heat.  This constant rate signature will not correlate with
excess heat.  These arguments have been made ad nauseam in peer review of
Miles' work.  Nothing that was said in the Miles communique that you posted
upsets that peered review result at all; in fact, it clearly points out
that Miles knew well what he was up against when he designed the
experiment.  The Miles data stands. At the moment, the small stones you are
throwing at it are futile strikes with blinders on.

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.  In the dense plasma created, 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.  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.

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.

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.

Bob Higgins

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  I’m sorry but that is not what Miles seems to be saying now. You are
 putting words in his mouth. In any event, the rate measured is incredibly
 low – well below any confidence level and well below atmospheric levels -
 so it is of negligible value. It is milliwatt level, in a world begging for
 kilowatts.



 IMO - the only result that matters to most of Science, going forward, will
 be the result of experiments of greater than 10 watts, and hopefully 100
 watts or more.



 AFAIK – Mizuno is the only player in this game in 2014, insofar as the
 putative fusion of deuterium at the 100 watt level is concerned. His
 results on this issue of helium, or lack thereof, will stand out as of
 highest importance - since it could well be the case that QM allows a small
 level of fusion at extremely low levels but with a reverse economy of scale
 that prevents it above the watt level.





 *From:* Jed Rothwell



 Jones Beene wrote:



 For the collection flasks he could have used anything. It was too late.

 Helium diffuses into the electrolysis cell itself during the operation.



 Yes, some does come in. This amount can be measured in a null experiment.
 It is the background amount. As it happens, Miles had many null experiments
 with no heat.





 Diffusion is based on amu. Argon is 10 times heaver than helium and it
 diffuses much more slowly through a material - when both can be diffused.
 However, argon does not diffuse into Pyrex at all and helium does.



 As I said, he looked for other gasses as well, and he looked for the
 overall amount of helium, which is to say the amount that diffuses in when
 you do nothing (let the cell sit there), or when you conduct electrolysis
 but there is no excess heat. When there is no excess heat the amount that
 diffuses in is always much less than what is measured after there is excess
 heat. In other words excess heat produces significantly more than the
 background from diffusion, but much less than the atmospheric background.



 Other objections have been raised and met. For example, some people said
 that perhaps the excess heat changed conditions and allowed more helium to
 defuse in. As Miles pointed out, and as I repeated in my report, this
 cannot be the case because in some tests with no excess heat the overall
 input power was greater than the positive tests, and the cell was hotter.



 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 I’m sorry but that is not what Miles seems to be saying now.


That's what he told me. I consulted with him at length when I wrote the
paper about him. He  I went over it many times.



 You are putting words in his mouth. In any event, the rate measured is
 incredibly low – well below any confidence level and well below atmospheric
 levels  . . .


It is far about the confidence levels and far below atmospheric levels.
Right there in the sweet spot between them. The confidence level is
background. That is, how much helium leaks in during the course of an
experiment. Which you measure by looking a null experiment; i.e. one with
no heat, or one where you do nothing but let the equipment sit there for
some length of time.



 - so it is of negligible value. It is milliwatt level, in a world begging
 for kilowatts.


About 500 mW in one experiment, as I recall. That was the best he could
achieve, so it will have to do. Negligible value has no meaning in this
context. It was high enough to measure the heat with great confidence, and
high enough to measure the helium with good confidence, albeit with large
error bars. There is no chance this was leaking in from the outside, for
the reasons Miles gave (and I reiterated). Miles was giving a lecture about
this once and pointed to the graph displayed in the slide. He pointed the
laser to the ceiling and said if it was leaking from atmosphere we would
have to display this slide 10 floors high.



 IMO - the only result that matters to most of Science, going forward, will
 be the result of experiments of greater than 10 watts, and hopefully 100
 watts or more.


That makes no sense. Many previous scientific breakthroughs began with
barely detectable effects, such as the heat from small, impure samples of
radioactive materials. These discoveries mattered. If you can learn the
nature of an effect by studying something barely detectable, and you can
then learn to control and scale it up, that is as good as studying
something easily detected. The initial magnitude of the effect is
irrelevant.

As long as you can be sure you are measuring a real effect, the fact that
it is small has no bearing on the scientific importance of the phenomenon.
It has no bearing on what you might learn from the experiment.

Granted, if Miles could have achieved 10 W it would have been better. He
wished he could. As he noted his calorimeter could not have supported a ~40
W reaction. You cannot make a calorimeter capable of measuring any level of
heat. You have to design it for a particular target range, and 40 W would
have exceeded the range for that instrument.

If the heat had been ~40 W it would have produced just about as much helium
as atmospheric concentration, and then people would say it was
contamination. So, ironically, this would have been less convincing,
because it would have been out of the sweet spot between the cell
background and atmospheric concentration. With his technique he could not
have increased the concentration by allowing the collection to continue
longer. The duration of the collection period was fixed. He would have to
get more than 40 W to go above atmospheric concentration.

Other people such as McKubre had instruments that did allow them to
continue collection for as long as they wanted. They did achieve
concentration above atmospheric levels.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

*  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. 

 

*  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.

 

*  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 PF 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.

 

*  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. 

 

*  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

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread mixent

In reply to  Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:19:00 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
No sorry I have only told that you can ask Mills. Not more not less. But he
is against any connection of hydrinos with CF, LENR. Sorry for the
confusion.
Peter

Randy has talked to hot fusioneers, and as a consequence believes that fusion is
very dangerous. Consequently he wants nothing to do with it. Furthermore, he has
stated that he has not detected any.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


 Randy has talked to hot fusioneers, and as a consequence believes that
 fusion is
 very dangerous. Consequently he wants nothing to do with it.


This is a peculiar attitude. Widespread, but peculiar. His reaction might
be cold fusion. It is what it is. It makes no difference what he wants it
to be.

Some researchers have the notion that if they discover something, they can
dictate to nature what it is and how it works. They also think they can
dictate to other researchers, as if God has given them a patent.



 Furthermore, he has
 stated that he has not detected any.


Has he looked for helium? That would be evidence for cold fusion. If he has
not detected any because he refused to look, that proves nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

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 
  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 PF 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

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

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 mailto: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 

 

*  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. 

 

*  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.

 

*  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 PF 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.

 

*  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. 

 

*  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

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread Bob Higgins

Jones,

Claytor's results are not hot fusion because: 1) it only works with certain
wire cathodes - the cathode condensed matter must be present and in the
right form or there will be no tritium, and 2) the neutron rate he produces
is very low (4E-9 of tritium) - not characteristic of hot fusion. Thus,
Claytor is producing fusion, but not hot fusion.  Since it requires the
condensed matter environment, it could easily be classified as a LENR
phenomenon.  I stand by my remarks about the inability of his 1500V-2500V
supply to be able to accelerate electrons or protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to
high pressure scattering collisions in his high density plasma.  So,
Claytor is LENR and his results indicate fusion.

The Farnsworth fusor reference is crazy.  The fusor is clearly a plasma
2-body ion-ion interaction that produces classical kinetic hot fusion at a
low rate.  The neutrons obtained are what you would expect from such a
reaction.  In fact, to date the only real application for a fusor is as a
laboratory neutron source.  Yes, there are some anomalies in the driving
voltage in the fusor; it seems the accelerating voltage is lower than
expected for the reaction to occur.  This could easily come from unmeasured
resonant effects akin to the collapsing bubble effect in sono-systems.
 I.E. there could be anomalous acceleration, but the result is strictly hot
fusion.  If Claytor was producing results with a hot fusion mechanism like
the fusor, he would be producing copious neutrons (at a dangerous rate) and
he is producing essentially none.

I am not minimizing Mizuno's experimental data, I am putting it in its
proper perspective.  It is you that is maximizing that one data point above
all others.  I think his results are equivocal.  They need to be repeated;
particularly the gas species evolution, since it appears that the control
behaved the same as the experiment. I do not consider it the most robust
experiment in the whole field by any means.  But, it is good data.

When I said your theory of no fusion, I mean your theory that the excess
heat being reported across the many experiments is due to a process other
than fusion or transmutation.

Bob Higgins


On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 *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 PF 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

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread Axil Axil

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 PF 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

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread mixent

In reply to  James Bowery's message of Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:00:58 -0500:
Hi James,

I wouldn't hunt too hard if I were you. I haven't said much more on this
particular issue in the past than I said recently.
I would be happy to answer any particular questions you might have.

[snip]
This is of no small interest to me as I'm currently holding off on using up
one of my more influential contacts on Mills/BLP pending the resolution, in
my mind, of the He4/heat correlation issue relative to Mills.  The only
person I know of who has put forth an explanation for how hydrino formation
could result in an He4/heat correlation in which the heat matches that
expected from fusion to He4 ash
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg97315.html is Robin
van Spaandonk.  I have not yet had time to hunt down his explanation and
examine it.  The mainstream would ignore both the correlation and Mills but
if one is more intellectually honest than the mainstream, one has work to
do before coming to a conclusion about any of this.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 To correct some voice input errors:


 Helium alone cannot leak IN without argon.

 I mean the atmospheric He to Ar ratio is fixed.


 I gave him links to my paper and to my sources -- WHICH say the same thing
 . . .

 I did not make this stiff up, as Dave Barry used to say.

 - Jed


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

2014-09-16 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:16:38 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


 Randy has talked to hot fusioneers, and as a consequence believes that
 fusion is
 very dangerous. Consequently he wants nothing to do with it.


This is a peculiar attitude. Widespread, but peculiar. His reaction might
be cold fusion. It is what it is. It makes no difference what he wants it
to be.

No, but it does affect how he behaves.


Some researchers have the notion that if they discover something, they can
dictate to nature what it is and how it works. They also think they can
dictate to other researchers, as if God has given them a patent.



 Furthermore, he has
 stated that he has not detected any.


Has he looked for helium? That would be evidence for cold fusion. If he has
not detected any because he refused to look, that proves nothing.

He has looked for ionizing radiation and found none other then the soft x-rays
he expects from Hydrino formation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Claytor's results are not hot fusion because: 1) it only works with
certain wire cathodes - the cathode condensed matter must be present and in
the right form or there will be no tritium, and 2) the neutron rate he
produces is very low (4E-9 of tritium) - not characteristic of hot fusion. 

Bob – “Not characteristic of hot fusion”? Not sure what you mean by that.
Fusion of deuterons to tritium does NOT produce neutrons in hot fusion. 

A proton is left over. You may be suggesting that little He3 happens in his
technique, but that only means a unique branching ratio. 

*   Thus, Claytor is producing fusion, but not hot fusion.  

If he gets almost no He3, then there is a different branching ratio from a
plasma environment, but to know whether it is hot or not requires much more
information than this.

*   Since it requires the condensed matter environment, it could easily
be classified as a LENR phenomenon.  I stand by my remarks about the
inability of his 1500V-2500V supply to be able to accelerate electrons or
protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to high pressure scattering collisions in his
high density plasma.  

But you do admit, one would hope, that deuterium loaded wires, which is a
condensed matter environment, following a high amp pulse from a 2000v cap –
and no plasma anywhere at the start - will produce lots of hot fusion, even
though the deuterons were essentially stationary and extremely dense, and
even if the wire was cold as ice.

No one can doubt that 2000 volts will produce hot fusion.

Thus the case NOT has been made that all of Claytor’s results are “cold
fusion” even if he chooses to call it by that name. 

Jones


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

In other words excess heat produces significantly more than the background
 from diffusion, but much less than the atmospheric background.


For sure.  It is not the absolute magnitude of the signal that matters (in
this case 4He), it is the sensitivity of the measuring instrument.  The way
the sensitivity is determined is through calibration runs.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Has he looked for helium? That would be evidence for cold fusion. If he has
 not detected any because he refused to look, that proves nothing.


I'm pretty sure Mills isn't using a PdD system.  That is the only system of
which I am aware that there's been a conclusion about 4He development.
 (One might also find evidence for 4He coming from TiD, WD, or something
similar, if one goes through the archives; I'm not sure.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:


 I remember that the SPAWAR experiments indicated He formed with the
 correct 24... Mev energy of a D-D fusion reaction.


In the SPAWAR experiments I recall ~ 10-15 MeV alphas -- I might have
missed a CR-39 paper that says the energy is more than this?  I suspect
that the 4He in the PdD experiments is perhaps not from d+d fusion.  I'm
very curious about a lithium-related reaction of some kind; e.g.,
7Li(p,α)α.  The Q value for this particular reaction is 16.84 MeV.

If I recall correctly, Ed would strongly disagree.  I believe Ed would say
that 4He is found in PdD experiments in which there is no lithium.  But I
think such a statement would need to be closely examined.  I vaguely recall
that the value of 24 MeV per 4He that was derived for the helium
experiments is subject to large error bars.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

I stand by my remarks about the inability of his 1500V-2500V supply to be
 able to accelerate electrons or protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to high pressure
 scattering collisions in his high density plasma.


An analogy I use for the discharge experiments is that of dropping a penny
on the floor and having a cannon ball fall from the ceiling below.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation