At 08:45 PM 5/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is a good analysis.
Thanks. I've been working on this one for a while....
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[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>http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf
Great.
From Mile's results and the more careful work that followed
(particularly certain work by McKubre) . . .
He was very careful.
I did not mean to imply that he was not. Rather, McKubre's approach
attempted to measure all the helium. It was "more careful" only in that sense.
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.
Right. Across many cells.
Helium is found orders of magnitude above the detection limit, as I
recall, but not in Miles' work.
Miles work is, by itself, conclusive, excepting only for the generic
requirement for independent replication. If we define his experiment
in a generic way, it's reproducible, i.e., set up a series of cells
that show, some of the time, excess heat. It is actually best if the
effect is "difficult to reproduce"! Measure the heat and the helium.
Report this for all cells. The "dead cells" are crucial, for those
are the controls!
Even if we don't know what the difference was between the dead cells
and the "live" ones. (microstructure of the palladium? chaotic oxide
layers? phase of the moon? or, more seriously, perhaps, neutrino flux
or some other unidentified environmental or experimental variation?),
the correlation between heat and helium is what is of interest. This
is what Cude totally fails to realize -- or deliberately avoids addressing.
What really knocked the ball out of the Park was his citing of Gozzi
as if this were some kind of negative result.
