From: Ruby
Wow. This is a stunner. * Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person. To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only is Melvin Miles incompetent, but so are the researchers from the numerous (16?) other studies confirming this effect as well. Are you, in fact, basing your opinion on only one result? Ruby - you should talk to Krivit, not me. Although not a scientist, Krivit has done a decent job of looking into this with a critical eye, more so than anyone here, including Jed Rothwell. I'm not comfortable being critical of Miles, who is a fine researcher. And my opinion is not based on anyone's "incompetence" nor is it based on any particular result - but on a down-to-earth understanding of mass spectrometers and what the specification and error limits actually are, and in looking at all the ways that mistakes can be made at these extremes. It's pretty basic. The challenge of this kind of measurement was always too great to handle on a small budget, and still is- when the resources are limited. Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of this work was done a decade ago. Miles was up against an intractable problem and we should thank him for being completely up front about it. But let's not forget he is talking about a few PARTS PER BILLION. It does not matter how well or how many times you calibrate - there is no acceptable measurement technique which can derive accuracy at this kind of helium dilution. None of the other 16, 18 or whatever number of measurements - which have purportedly taken place, were robust enough to have made the amount of helium which is needed in order to get the dilution level up to ppm. without extreme "enrichment," and that is where the problem lies. Getting the He/D2 ratio higher prior to measurement is what few want to talk about in detail. To make things worse, much worse - there is a technique for bringing samples up from ppb to ppm which is called "gettering" or NEG (non evaporable gettering). It can introduce order of magnitude errors. Gettering can inaccuracy since what is being done is to selectively remove over 99% of the gas in the sample, in order to enrich by at least 1000 fold (in the worst case). In doing this, the ways to assess how much of the unwanted gas (deuterium) is removed as a ratio is by pressure or mass or subsequent boil-off release from the getter etc. None of these is satisfactory since they have high error additions of their own, and the mass of the getter is far greater than the gas mass removed. Without knowing the level of enrichment, it is all an educated guess. Gettering should never be used to raise ppb to ppm. Period. Moreover - deuterium has an "inversion temperature," which has not been accounted for properly. Some of these researchers have never mentioned inversion temperature AFAIK nor stated exactly how the gettering was calibrated to insure accuracy. When Fred Sparber first brought-up inversion temperature as a possible source of error - years ago, he was routinely ignored and criticized by everyone especially the main proponents of the heat-helium correlation. In short, this heat-helium correlation seems to be a insider fiction or myth which has taken on a life of its own. It is almost like a pseudo-religious doctrine. having some basis in fact but not much. However, admittedly, if (big if) Mizuno does indeed come out with measurements in November which support the heat-helium conclusion - then you will see me and maybe even Krivit instantly change horses - since Mizuno is the only game in town these days for LENR at the kilowatt level - . which is the level where you will NOT NEED ENRICHMENT to see helium, if there is any. Jones
