Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to > study helium, or they may not have. > > No one, including Rothwell thinks that they “may not have had” an excellent > opportunity, along with proper MS available. So, of course they had an > excellent opportunity to report helium-to-heat ratio. > That is incorrect. I do not know whether this equipment could have been adapted for a helium study. Most cells cannot, including some of the really good ones from McKubre. You have to have very tightly closed cells with the best Swagelok connectors. OR you have to have an open cell like the one Miles used, which was self-purging. An experiment has to be designed from the ground up to contain the helium and then measure it. That can interfere with other design goals. I do not know whether these experiments were designed for helium studies. Just looking at the schematics, I do not see an on-line mass spec connection, and there are too many other things poking into the cell. It is difficult to draw a sample after the test. An on-line connection is better. Perhaps this schematic is incomplete. Perhaps they did a helium study with some other configuration. Offhand, this one does not seem promising, but I cannot judge. > 2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have. > > The rational assumption, given the scientific method, can only be that did > the study, but did not publish the results. No that is not rational. It is jumping to a conclusion about equipment you know nothing about. > 3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive, > or it might be negative. > > No. If it was positive – since they were in desperate need of future > funding > at the time – it would have been published. They had tons of funding. They were rolling in money. They published practically nothing. I was told this is because their findings were considered intellectual property. > In fact they were closed down later. In a fight over the intellectual property. Not because they ran out of money. Toyota has billions and billions of dollars. > That no such study was published is indicative of the lack of helium . . . There are countless details about this research which were never published. I learned about some of important details from Martin, mainly about materials. They have not been revealed as far as I know. I do not know the actual details, but I know what sort of things were discovered about the palladium. I know that it has all been kept under wraps. > We have no evidence for or against any of these, but > regardless of the truth value, together they prove: Miles was mistaken. > > No - he was not necessarily mistaken. Who said he was mistaken? Not me. Well it sure sounds like you are saying that! Look at the title of this thread. You sure as heck do not have any technical justification for any of your assertions. Every "fact"you have pointed to so far has been wrong. Flat out wrong. For example, your belief that the mass spectrometers in these studies are not capable of measuring ppb levels of helium is completely wrong. > Miles was led to believe that he had a correlation of heat to helium based > on milliwatt heat level experiments. If that information was correct, it > only applies to milliwatt level experiments. I doubt it. Anyway, 500 mW is pretty close to a watt. I doubt there is another mechanism that clicks in at 1 W, or 10 W. - Jed
