There seems to be a lot of focus on McKubre without any reference to Miles-Bush @ China-Lake & U of Texas, DeNino @ ENEA, Arata -- amongst around a dozen others. The SRI, China Lake, ENEA work is the most extensive/thorough. Are there possible holes in the SRI work? Sure. But the broad body of research indicates some sort of correlation -- even if not 100% commensurate. I could envision the main reaction pathway "being close" to commensurate, with the difference being made up by a secondary/tertiary pathways. Regardless I think the helium work is good and indicative of something very interesting well beyond "artifact". But perhaps it is actually in error. I wouldn't mind accepting that if that can be proven somehow. In fact, if it is in error and the main reaction pathway is "non-nuclear", LENR is even more bizarre & amazing in my opinion.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Jed Rothwell > > Brian Ahern is one expert who believes that the case for > helium is not made. > > JR: Okay, that's one person. I was not aware that he is an > expert in mass spectroscopy. > > Yes. Brian has had access to the very best MS devices which he believes are > superior to what is available at SRI, for instance. > There are others who are less vocal than Brian, or more > circumspect in public pronouncements, but equally in doubt. > JR: Why would anyone be circumspect about this issue? > > McKubre is the short answer. > > JR: The cold fusion researchers I know are not circumspect > about anything. They tend to be bold. > > Everyone in the field, aside from Krivit, respects and admires Mike McKubre > to the max … and MM has staked out this particular territory of “helium > commensurate with heat.” > > JR: Even outspoken and argumentative. If they were not bold > they would have left this field long ago. > > Not really. There are a few who are downright laid back, but maybe they > are > all in California. Helium is a case-in-point for giving utmost respect for > one expert opinion which overlooks potential problems. Rather than argue > with McKubre’s conclusions, many doubters have decided to wait-and-see. > That > is probably the best choice, all things considered. In fact, Ahern fully > respects McKubre but thinks that in this particular case, he is relying on > equipment which is not suitable for the task and could be seeing mostly > noise and/or contamination. > > Surely you do not think that Krivit came up with this > notion > without plenty of ammo from real experts… > > JR: So far you've listed one person. That does not sound > like "plenty of ammo" to me. It sounds like one person's opinion. > > Then you should ask Krivit for his sources. They are probably more > extensive > than you realize. This is not my argument, but I do know Ahern’s opinion. > > If you are looking for other names now, I suspect that W&L may have > influenced if not coached Steve on this issue, but that is no more than a > guess. > > In fact, several on Vortex are in the camp which differs with Brian to the > extent of believing that helium must certainly have been detected, but that > it is not proved to be commensurate with heat gain, and could even be > incidental or contamination. It is a sliding scale and Ahern is not the > extreme of negativity. > > In fact, Brian thinks that helium seen thus far in cold fusion is unproved > and may have mundane explanations, and furthermore that SRI’s device is > subpar for that extremely demanding task. This is not the same as saying > that McKubre’s conclusion is wrong. > > The issue is not settled. > > Jones > > > >
