I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background illumination.

The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.

The excess heat could arise as D2* without any gamma rays.  Thermacore Corp got 
50 watts of excess power for H2O electrolysis with nickel in 1996. I was 
involved with Thermacore at that time and I  found their results to be 
credible, but it would not scale up.

How can this be reconciled with CF?

From: melmil...@juno.com <melmil...@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 7:02 PM
To: m...@theworld.com
Cc: ahern_br...@msn.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Thank-you for defending my C/F work against the false allegations by Brian 
Ahern.  I would like to add the following:

1. Radiation was measured in the 1990 experiments showing the correlation of  
excess heat and helium-4 production. Dental film placed close to the cell 
showed fogging in both experiments, and these results were shown in the 
publication.  Many later experiments not producing any excess heat gave no 
fogging of  such dental films.  Later experiments showed high G-M radiation 
counts for some Pd/D experiments.
2. The 1990 experiments with excess power gave some of the highest values  that 
I observed reaching about 0.38 W of excess power.
3 .Calculations show that  my cell producing 0.100 W of excess power at a cell 
current of 0.525 A will theoretically produce 10.7 ppb He-4 for the D + D = 
He-4  reaction.  The measurement of He-4   for this experiment  reported a 
value of 12.2 ppb.  Subtracting my background gives 7.4 ppb.  These 
measurements  of  He-4 claimed an accuracy of +- 0.1 ppb, thus this result is a 
74 sigma effect in terms of the He-4 measurements. This experiment was the most 
accurate in terms of He-4 measurements.  Other groups measuring He-4 for my 
experiments reported an accuracy of about +-1.0 ppb.  Even for a 5 ppb 
measurement above background, this represents a 5 sigma effect.  The background 
using metal flasks was 4.5 +-0.5 ppb for experiments with no excess power, and 
this background was always subtracted in my reports of He-4 production.
4.  The diffusion of He-4 was later measured for these same glass flasks, and 
the results would not have affected my 1990 results using these  glass  flasks. 
 There was no diffusion of He-4 into the metal flasks that were later used.
5. My 1990 results used Pd/HO as controls.  There was no excess power measured 
and no He'd produced.
6.  This work has been  replicated by several different groups including 
Mackerel at SRI with funding from DAR PA.

Mel Miles

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:12:35 -0500 "Dr. Mitchell Swartz" 
<m...@theworld.com<mailto:m...@theworld.com>> writes:
            January 26, 2018


 Please, I expect more from you.
 Yet, you continue untruthful and wrongful statements,

Please re-consider Brian, because yours is a wrongful attack
on Mel Miles who does not deserve this - and my field
which does not deserve this.

Reasons:  --------------------------------

1) penetrating ionizing radiation is FORBIDDEN.
 (see paper for refs). This is not the first time you
  havae ignored this.

2) watts is power, not energy.  This, too, is not the first
  time you did this. And at MIT we now measure MICROWATTS
  in a calibrated fashion.

3-6) Mel, if memory serves, DID account for diffusion
and DID do background calibrations.
 So why do you say otherwise?
 Show me the data/info to back up your claims -- beyond your hearsay.
I would like this for the following reasons:

 First, Mel Miles did more calibration, and data collection,
than you ever did on any Manelis expt or any nanomaterial
expt I saw at your home.

 Second, my aqueous expts got 5-15 watts excess power for
years (from ICCF10 to the Stirling engine expts, for example)
and I have shared privately with you MOAC#3 data showing more than 100 W
of excess power just this month!!!!

 So, you should consider stopping attacking those in the
CF/LANR/LENR field for several reasons.

First, there is no reason to attack because YOUR work did not give
excess heat. Why?  If you remember, I took several of your
samples, and added D and then they worked.  They worked
with gas loading (as the next paper at ICCF21 will show)
and they worked with the JET Energy novel loading method
which gave the open demos, and the other papers
(e.g. see 2nd paper)

 You should read THOSE papers, too; since I gave
YOU full acknowledgement.

Second, the field and XSH are REAL, and attacking the
few remaining scientists is wrong as it has NO REAL
BASIS is just luddite-cruel.

Third, get off the proverbial 'couch' and do some experiments
yourself. You can then present them at a CF/LANR
Colloquium at MIT like you used to do.

 Have good day.  I am going back to work on CF/LANR
today because I have patients all weekend through Tuesday,
and then we are meeting at MIT on Wednesday.

 My best regards,


Friday, January 26, 2018, 7:38:55 AM, you wrote:

        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


Mel Miles
807 W. Mamie, Ridgecrest CA 93555
9026 Kellyann, Bakersfield, CA93313
cell:  760-384-8247

Reply via email to