I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation.

1.No radiation accompanied the He-4

2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours

3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm

4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !

5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.

6. no background calibrations were attempted leaving an open question.

7. the work was done in 1993 and never corroborated

This evidence was well intentioned, but very far from bullet proof.

A simpler explanation is that the excess energy was that described by Gerald 
Pollack in: The fourth phase of water. That avoids the need to explain the lack 
of radiation. Water can store energy absorbed by background infrared radiation.

The LENR community does not recognize that the excess power outputs are at the 
milliwatt level.

From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Vortex; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

A trusting soul over at 
 wrote that science does not exclude different thinking, meaning it does not 
reject valid ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should.

There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"


Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost. 
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone 
who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."

- Jed

Reply via email to