This is a good analysis. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But there is another problem with measuring helium quantitatively, which is > capturing it. Variable amounts of helium will be held in the cell materials. > Miles simply captured samples of the effluent gases. . . . That he did. It seems like an odd way to do the experiment because you are limited to the time it takes to fill the flask used to capture the gas. That is about an hour and 20 minutes I think. (19 flask volumes per day.) Using some other technique you can let the gas build up for a longer duration, to a higher concentration. However, it turns out there are many disadvantages to these other techniques. Miles thought carefully before arriving at this technique. I have a long conversation with him about this, and I asked him many questions about it. I described his technique in some detail here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf > From Mile's results and the more careful work that followed (particularly > certain work by McKubre) . . . He was very careful. > Heat, it is claimed, can be measured to mW, the helium, it is claimed, is >> orders of magnitude above the detection limit, and yet the errors are huge. >> > > Notice that Cude doesn't mention how accurately the helium can be measured. No one said the helium is orders of magnitude about the detection limit. That's absurd. If it was, we would probably be able to zero in on the exact process that created it. It is significantly above the detection limit. It is also far below the level it would be if it leaked in from the air. It is not possible to have a controlled leak that would correlate so neatly with the energy release during the time the helium is collected. - Jed
