> > However, other people have published similar helium results in the > peer-reviewed literature. > > No quantitative correlations were published in peer-reviewed literature.
> > Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and >> they were controversial, and challenged in refereed literature. >> > > That is nonsense from start to finish. He worked on that project for 5 > years as I recall, and he wrote hundreds of pages. That is not a preliminary > result. It was not crude all. Miles eyeballed peaks, and assigned the detection limit to the smallest (later changed to fit his theory better). Here's a quote from a much later review: "Therefore, in Table 1, the small, medium, and large helium-4 peaks are assigned values of 10^13, 10^14, and 10^15 helium-4 atoms per 500 mL above background levels." That's crude. Even his best results are all over the map, varying by close to an order of magnitude or so. That's crude, regardless of how many years he worked on it, or how many pages he wrote. Here's Lomax's assessment: "(...Miles' helium measurements were relatively crude compared to what was done later.)" > The results are only controversial in your imagination. As far as I know, > no papers in the refereed literature challenging these results. > > Well, you should access your own database now and then. Here's one example: *Jones and Hansen, *Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments,* **J. **Phys. Chem. **1995,**99, *6966-6972 There were others, and there was some back and forth after this one. As Storms says in his review: "Although many critiques (Miles and Jones 1992; Miles 1998) were offered at the time to reject the results, subsequent studies support their conclusion..." Storms didn't have the integrity to actually cite the critiques though; only the replies. But they were controversial, even outside my mind. And no replications in peer-review have settled the controversy.
