On 04/01/2010 01:54 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > 2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>: >> Sent from my iPhone
>> But when the helium findings >> correlate with excess heat, it all changes. The results confirm each other. > > Too much proof makes people doubt. In what way does that statement make sense? "I doubt I'll fall down if I lift both feet off the floor at once, because there's been *too* *much* *proof* of that claim." > What we need is an indisputable > proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about > a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days > it would accumulate a sizable amount of He, which couldn't possibly > come from the atmosphere because of the positive pressure. You'd be surprised at the arguments produced by skeptics. Helium is funny stuff; it can leak "uphill", against a pressure gradient, even against a gas flow. The only way to guarantee that no net helium will leak *into* a cell is to have positive pressure of HELIUM within the cell, which kind of defeats the purpose of the test. In short, unambiguous proof of helium production would require production of an awful lot of helium. On the other hand, clear demonstration that helium detection is tightly correlated with excess heat is very clear support for CF claims. It's also awfully simple -- if that correlation is "too much proof" for some people to assimilate then I suggest that the problem is not in the proof, it's in the apparently impaired individuals who can't grasp it! > > Michel >
