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….

Reply via email to