I have to admit, despite _wanting_ an _easier_ way to adopt as working hypothesis Mills's theory -- which I'm convinced is quite plausible -- than Robin's extrapolations beyond where Mills himself will go with his theory; Jones Beene is no help in fulfilling my desire to avoid delving into Robin's extrapolations of a theory with which I am not yet competent.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >> 1) no gamma radiation is detected >> > True. > > > >> 2) there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion >> without gammas >> > Oh yes there is. See: M. Miles and others doing cold fusion. That's proof. > Pretty good experimental proof. Your assertion is based on theory. > Experiments trump theory. > > > >> 3) the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3, >> yet the proponent does not detect tritium or He3 >> > Evidently that is not true. That is to say, the experimental evidence says > that is not true. > > > >> 4) there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them >> show a helium-to-heat correlation. >> > No one has looked for helium in one of these experiments, as far as I > know. I do not know of any published papers, and I am pretty familiar with > the literature. > > > >> 5) There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere >> >> 6) Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex >> >> 7) Helium diffuses into Pyrex >> > Yes of course, but as I pointed out previously, the rate of diffusion is > known and Miles measured it and confirmed it. > > > >> 8) The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower >> than the amount of helium in the atmosphere >> > Yes, and the blank experiments proved that is true, beyond question. You > say it may be a problem but you are flat out wrong. You have not shown why > it might be a problem. You might as well claim there can be no experiments > in vacuum here on earth because we are surrounded by air. There is no > question helium is excluded from the cells, except for 4 ppb background. > Since that background is consistent we can be sure it does not explain > Miles' results. > > > >> It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive >> theory of D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above . . . >> > It is quite comprehensible to Miles, to Storms, me and many others. You > disagree, but you have no logical or technical justification. The fact that > the background is lower than atmosphere is irrelevant. > > > >> , when the only contrary evidence is part per billion of helium . . . >> > > That is not the only contrary evidence, as I am sure you know. There have > been other experiments that achieved much higher concentrations, including > concentrations above atmosphere (McKubre). Still others that started off at > atmospheric concentration, deliberately. > > Since you know these facts as well as I do, you are being intellectually > dishonest by pretending there is only "one contrary evidence." You are > being childish, and you are not fooling anyone. This is inappropriate for > this forum. We acknowledge what the literature claims. We don't have to > agree, but we do not pretend that claims do not exist. You have read this > other literature. Perhaps you have reason to disbelieve McKubre and the > ENEA along with Miles, but please do not pretend you are ignorant or that > their papers do not exist. > > > >> , hundreds of times less than in the atmosphere, which is supposedly >> being detected by machines which remain unidentified. >> > > They are identified in the literature and in the Hoffman book, as I am > sure you know. The laboratories describe them in great detail. Perhaps you > will refuse to read the literature and the Hoffman book. However, just > because you will not look at something, that does not make it magically > vanish. That is a tiresome bad habit of the so-called "skeptics." Don't > stoop to it. > > (People who seriously believe that the literature does not exist because > they refuse to look at it lack what psychologists call "object permanence" > which most children acquire at 3 months.) > > - Jed > >
