Hi Peter,
This is a good experiment, and thanks for mentioning it (but it is only in the range of 10-20 milliwatts total power) and it depends completely on a NEG to enrich the very low helium production by a factor of ~1000:1. OTOH the equipment at ENEA is top notch. I suspect that it is the most reliable ever used in the field. Preparata was one of the BEST minds ever in LENR, IMHO. Too bad, he is not around. But what this means, being milliwatt, is that instead of depending on the MS for an accurate indication of what is going on, and the extremely dubious possibility of ppb measurement - you are depending on the enrichment ratio, which you calculate that the getter gives you. Imagine that! No one, including the experts like Rothwell, have adequately acknowledged that the getter, which little more than a crude sponge – has become the critical element in this whole discussion! Do you trust a sponge for this? Well, the “Elaine” character on Seinfeld certainly could, and that is the way that I view this whole concocted scenario of ppb helium – which is comedy masquerading as science. And this makes the results extremely suspicious to others and especially skeptics, yet not necessarily wrong. There is no doubt some helium is produced in the reaction. It is incidental or a major contributor? It looks to me like the helium could provide microwatts of power here – but probably not more than 500. This means incidental as in QM, not major. So in the end, yes there is a fractional correlation of excess heat to helium, but it is at the microwatt to milliwatt level, and nowhere close to providing an accurate answer. Today – in 2014 - if you are not talking 50 watts net and 20 watts gain, forget it, and a kilowatt is the goal. I am sorry to say that, because I have little doubt that cold fusion works at the milliwatt level, in its mode as a QM effect - with helium at low levels - but that is “ancient history” so to speak. The future depends on higher probability than QM provides, and which Mizuno is apparently prepared to deliver (and maybe your hero, Randy Mills, can deliver as well). Jones From: [email protected] Hello Jones Helium was also measured in the experiment done by A. de Ninno e.a published in 2002. <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf Unfortunately after the publication only silence was the result. The youtube video about what happened before and after the publication has unfortunately been removed. Peter v Noorden From: Jones Beene <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science – not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes against the grain. Funny thing, however, in trying to move in that direction. What is more basic and fundamental as a measurement value which needs to be known - than the mass of the proton? Let’s focus on that simple item - wrt the broad claim of accuracy at the ppb range. Let me say that as a personal interest, since this is somewhat related but not exactly - I have a collection of mass measurements of the proton, from different Labs around the world, over different time frames. Conveniently, for this discussion - the mass variation in these measurements goes down to around the 9-10 significant digits, but that is where the fun starts. In this case we are not talking about dilution of helium in a mixed gas, but the claim that 1 ppb mass variation with good accuracy is possible. Yes, I realize this is not apples-to-apples, but I think it makes the point that Miles claim is not believable as a practical matter, when it comes down to real-world applicability. The CODATA “recommended” value for proton mass is 1.672 621 777(74) x 10-27 kg Where 74 ppb is the supposed error range – which would be mean that top labs should all come in with something similar – correct? Even so, this error range is well over 1 ppb and it represents the best effort, Worldwide - for a most important value. Variation is actual measurements, however, as published over the years is huge - especially in countries which may not have wanted to follow the Western lead, and especially back in the nineties. Even Jefferson Lab, no slouch when it comes to measurement - reports a value that diverges way back at the ppm range, as do dozens if not hundreds of other measurements, and most of them were back when Miles work was being done. If the experts cannot get their act together - at greater than ppm on the mass of the proton, given its importance to physics, then I’m simply far from confident that one can accurately discriminate in a situation where there is claimed to be a few ppb of an atom of helium in a mix, the other components of which are so close. Of course, I have never claimed to be an expert on this, only a collector of information from various sources - but I have talked to several experts who agree that this talk about accuracy in the ppb range is closer to wishful thinking than something which can be taken as fact. For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and we should have that report in a matter of months. The think I find most alarming is the “circle the wagons” mentality that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno’s work. It is anti-scientific and counter-productive. From: Ruby >From Dr. Melvin Miles: "Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb." Ruby
