At 02:37 PM 3/31/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
>> alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
>
> A familiarity with the history of the dispute, and even of very recent
> comments here about this, would reveal how incorrect this is.
If helium production is correlated with heat -- which it is -- then it
really doesn't matter what the ratio between them is, nor does it matter
how large the signal is. It's inexplicable by chemical means.
Yes. That's the point. I wouldn't say "inexplicable," strictly, but
the possibility of an explanation other than common cause becomes
ridiculously low.
I took that to be what Michel was referring to, rather than the simple
fact that helium sometimes appears.
They are two different facts, and we have a fair amount of helium
data that is not correlated with heat. Hoffman reports a lot of
helium data in his book, based on EPRI reports, without heat data.
It's explicitly missing, and it seems that the helium measurements
were made deliberately independent from the heat, to avoid the
obvious accusation of expectation bias.
If that's what Michel meant, it's not what he said, because he said,
"who cares about the heat," and you need to care about the heat to
care about the correlation between heat and helium!
