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
