And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work), I wouldn't go out of my way to interview people in the field with widely differing opinions on the matter at hand (i.e. Ahern vs. Storms). I have no pet theory, I make no firm conclusions, I have only hunches based on actual, tangible evidence: such as the well-vetted heat/helium work. You have one experiment from Mizuno and a bunch of ambiguous in-house studies from Mills. Mills has totally reformulated QM to fit his pet-view of the world, which you seem to support, and I'm the one going out on a limb? Please don't make me laugh.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > This has got to be a joke, right? > > > > Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my > day. > > > > In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific > conclusion other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium *cannot* be > responsible for gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist > - what difference does logic and factuality make? > > > > This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can. > However, if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are > spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear > physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons > to helium-4. > > > > Jones > > > > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > I appreciate & respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will > reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on > a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the > same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium > correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are > merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just > classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between > "believers" in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or > theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The > arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to > task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just > trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying > to "blow the lid off" (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM > distinction (as Jed & Mel have made abundantly clear). "Disbelievers" in > heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a "faith-based" argument > in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power > than Miles . . . > > > > Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power. > > > > I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect > helium. Most cells are not. > > > > - Jed > > > > >
