Jones is making good points, but <snip> > You (Robin, at least) is willing to accept Mills equally > surprising claims - whereas Mills gives almost zero detail, and > often bases his P-out claims on guess-timates of what the power > would be IF the photon radiation were converted, and yet in > comparison, here we have what looks to be very fairly solid > readings of "real" power, not Mills' guesstimated power, and > yet...you guys are balking because of what, exactly?
I think you are not reading Mills carefully enough, in context, with respect to specific experiments. When I see energy claims, say in the first H-He plasma paper, there is no fudging to a careful reader -- and that was followed by further experiments using five calorimetric techniques, ending in the water bath calorimetry which is very, very clean and specific. Naudin's flow calorimetry can be of the same kind of reliability as the water bath approach, and McKubre used flow calorimetry for his excellect CF experiments. Naudin has not yet stated the calibration quality of his temperature measurements, and Mills has. > Mike Carrell
