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>>
