Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

2018-01-30 Thread mixent
In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:54:07 +:
Hi,

There is another point here too. IIRC a mass spec works by ionizing a particle
then measuring the mass to charge ratio. A deep level D2* molecule has an
ionization potential in the tens of kV, so is unlikely to be detected by a mass
spec. at all.

>
>Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.
>
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
>
>In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>>illumination.
>>
>>
>>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
>[snip]
>The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
>is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
>the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
>sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>local asymmetry = temporary success
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

2018-01-30 Thread Brian Ahern

Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.


From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

2018-01-30 Thread mixent
In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

2018-01-30 Thread Brian Ahern
I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background illumination.


The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.

The excess heat could arise as D2* without any gamma rays.  Thermacore Corp got 
50 watts of excess power for H2O electrolysis with nickel in 1996. I was 
involved with Thermacore at that time and I  found their results to be 
credible, but it would not scale up.

How can this be reconciled with CF?


From: melmil...@juno.com <melmil...@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 7:02 PM
To: m...@theworld.com
Cc: ahern_br...@msn.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Mitchell,
Thank-you for defending my C/F work against the false allegations by Brian 
Ahern.  I would like to add the following:

1. Radiation was measured in the 1990 experiments showing the correlation of  
excess heat and helium-4 production. Dental film placed close to the cell 
showed fogging in both experiments, and these results were shown in the 
publication.  Many later experiments not producing any excess heat gave no 
fogging of  such dental films.  Later experiments showed high G-M radiation 
counts for some Pd/D experiments.
2. The 1990 experiments with excess power gave some of the highest values  that 
I observed reaching about 0.38 W of excess power.
3 .Calculations show that  my cell producing 0.100 W of excess power at a cell 
current of 0.525 A will theoretically produce 10.7 ppb He-4 for the D + D = 
He-4  reaction.  The measurement of He-4   for this experiment  reported a 
value of 12.2 ppb.  Subtracting my background gives 7.4 ppb.  These 
measurements  of  He-4 claimed an accuracy of +- 0.1 ppb, thus this result is a 
74 sigma effect in terms of the He-4 measurements. This experiment was the most 
accurate in terms of He-4 measurements.  Other groups measuring He-4 for my 
experiments reported an accuracy of about +-1.0 ppb.  Even for a 5 ppb 
measurement above background, this represents a 5 sigma effect.  The background 
using metal flasks was 4.5 +-0.5 ppb for experiments with no excess power, and 
this background was always subtracted in my reports of He-4 production.
4.  The diffusion of He-4 was later measured for these same glass flasks, and 
the results would not have affected my 1990 results using these  glass  flasks. 
 There was no diffusion of He-4 into the metal flasks that were later used.
5. My 1990 results used Pd/HO as controls.  There was no excess power measured 
and no He'd produced.
6.  This work has been  replicated by several different groups including 
Mackerel at SRI with funding from DAR PA.

Mel Miles

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:12:35 -0500 "Dr. Mitchell Swartz" 
<m...@theworld.com<mailto:m...@theworld.com>> writes:
January 26, 2018

Brian,

 Please, I expect more from you.
 Yet, you continue untruthful and wrongful statements,
now BROADCAST ON BOTH CMNS and VORTEX.

Please re-consider Brian, because yours is a wrongful attack
on Mel Miles who does not deserve this - and my field
which does not deserve this.

Reasons:  

1) penetrating ionizing radiation is FORBIDDEN.
 (see paper for refs). This is not the first time you
  havae ignored this.

2) watts is power, not energy.  This, too, is not the first
  time you did this. And at MIT we now measure MICROWATTS
  in a calibrated fashion.

3-6) Mel, if memory serves, DID account for diffusion
and DID do background calibrations.
 So why do you say otherwise?
 Show me the data/info to back up your claims -- beyond your hearsay.
I would like this for the following reasons:

 First, Mel Miles did more calibration, and data collection,
than you ever did on any Manelis expt or any nanomaterial
expt I saw at your home.

 Second, my aqueous expts got 5-15 watts excess power for
years (from ICCF10 to the Stirling engine expts, for example)
and I have shared privately with you MOAC#3 data showing more than 100 W
of excess power just this month

 So, you should consider stopping attacking those in the
CF/LANR/LENR field for several reasons.

First, there is no reason to attack because YOUR work did not give
excess heat. Why?  If you remember, I took several of your
samples, and added D and then they worked.  They worked
with gas loading (as the next paper at ICCF21 will show)
and they worked with the JET Energy novel loading method
which gave the open demos, and the other papers
(e.g. see 2nd paper)

 You should read THOSE papers, too; since I gave
YOU full acknowledgement.

Second, the field and XSH are REAL, and attacking the
few remaining scientists is wrong as