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 Mitchell, 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 Brian, Please, I expect more from you. Yet, you continue untruthful and wrongful statements, now BROADCAST ON BOTH CMNS and VORTEX. 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, Mitchell ----------------------------------------- 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 lenr-forum.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-forum.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4fc3c7a1a8b544dd528008d5637ca7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636524309392203114&sdata=t2d90VR%2FaYHUukXwI%2FUfNr5GxIjaTyPnEGNXz57ybOc%3D&reserved=0> 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: http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscovermagazine.com%2F2010%2Foct%2F12-most-important-science-trends-30-years&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4fc3c7a1a8b544dd528008d5637ca7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636524309392203114&sdata=Sr7TbZCv5DxJRIYlD%2FCBpF46qyhcIhqhtOt4Nf6FOLo%3D&reserved=0> 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:" http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FHagelsteinontheoryan.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4fc3c7a1a8b544dd528008d5637ca7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636524309392203114&sdata=oW8N9uMj3KAamQacSJxEs2LUyj87ztP%2BZA3bvNdNoao%3D&reserved=0> 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 mailto:m...@theworld.com Mel Miles 807 W. Mamie, Ridgecrest CA 93555 9026 Kellyann, Bakersfield, CA93313 cell: 760-384-8247 melmil...@juno.com
