Jones Beene <[email protected]> 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
