At 03:53 AM 12/27/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman: » I have seen no peer-reviewed
criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium.»
If I have understood correctly, the correlation
is meaningless, because there are orders of
magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat.
This is totally incorrect. Helium is generally
found at roughly half that expected from the
heat, in most experiments, and the difference is
mostly ascribed to helium being "hidden" in the
metal lattice. I.e., imagine that helium is being
formed at or near the surface, and it is formed
with some energy. Half the helium will have a
vector inward to the lattice, and so will be
buried, effectively "ion-implanted," and it can't move easily.
In one experiment at SRI, repeated flushing of
the material with deuterium was done, as I
understand, and they were able to recover, they
claimed, most of the helium. From all the
evidence, Storms estimates 25+/- 5 MeV/He-4 as
the production Q value, compared to the
theoretical value of 23.8 MeV for any kind of
deuterium fusion to helium. Krivit contests all
this, but often with a lack of understanding of the issues.
Capturing all the helium is quite difficult,
apparently. The energy is known to much higher
accuracy, generally. In the first work, Miles,
the helium was only measured to one significant
digit, or even to the order of magnitude. That
was quite enough to show clear correlation.
Therefore there is only one conclusion to
make, that we have no idea what is going on
there and we have no way to deduce the cause
for the FPE. Not in a matter of degree that
would differentiate it from Ni-H cold fusion.
As causality is not yet established and
understood, DDSLA is the correct approach imo.
And FPE refers into cold fusion heat anomaly in general.
Let's just say we don't use the term that way.
"DDSLA"? I don't get the reference.
