From: Brian Ahern > I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation. 1. No radiation accompanied the He-4… [snip]… 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. Brian, the Pollack explanation might well apply to the Graneau water explosions and similar experiments but cannot explain the 6 months of multi-watt gain of P&F in France or why the helium disappears when protium is used instead of deuterium.
However, “deep electron levels” in one form or another (in a composite theoretical version of Holmlid/Mills/Meulenberg/Lawandy etc) can elegantly explain almost everything in LENR and beyond. Slightly off point, let me segue to a letter-to-the-editor from Ron Bourgoin which appears in IE# 135 and which expresses a thought on the deep electron theory which is important to explain Holmlid. Side note: Unfortunately, Ron Bourgoin passed away recently. He was a physicist and expert in HTSC with several inventions in the field. Revisiting the Segré-Chamberlain Experiment The Segré-Chamberlain experiment in the fall of 1955 shot antiprotons into stationary protons. The experiment produced collision fragments that were thought at the time to be annihilation products, but based on the article by William L. Stubbs in IE #129, the proton consists of nine muons, which means that what Emilio Segré and Owen Chamberlain observed in 1955 were constituents of the proton, not annihilation events. The experiment indicates the inherent instability of the proton….