Jed,
You are overlooking helium as being supplied by alpha emission from Pd, instead of from fusion. This has been the W&L stance - yes, there is helium but it comes from alpha emission following a beta decay of other weak force interaction. That was my reason for re-presenting the Forsley presentation from Mizzou/2009 yesterday. He finds numerous channels for fusion, and by implication, there are numerous possible nuclear reactions other than fusion, all at the same time. All in the same experiment. This flies in the face of Ockham, but Forsley is entirely correct IMO, even if he did not go as far as he could at that time. This field cannot be simplified into an either/or situation. Ockham has no place in this field - LENR it is inherently complex. Krivit and his sponsors are half-right (but half-wrong), as is anyone who says that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else. There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. Forsley nailed it in 2009. End of debate for me (and also for many others who are a lot better qualified). This is a growing consensus on this. Jones From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energ y-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that "New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles' reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous." Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: "Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium." Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: "Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium. If you agree that Miles is correct, then it seems to me that unless you think the starting material is something other than deuterium, you agree it is fusion. Perhaps I misunderstand your position." I cannot make head or tail of Krivit's views on why cold fusion is not fusion. How can anyone agree that Miles is well-supported one moment, and then claim they don't indicate fusion the next moment?!? What else could they possibly indicate? Miles himself has no doubt the helium proves it is fusion. I think even Huizenga would agree. Perhaps Krivit's views are in tune with the Windom - Larsen theory. I don't know anything about that theory. If it claims the Pd-D process does not convert deuterium into helium then it is wrong. A theory has to conform to the known facts. Krivit's attack on McKubre is outrageous nonsense. As Lomax pointed out, it is not good for the field that someone with such weird notions is taken seriously by the mass media. I don't worry about Krivit. This field has any number of both enemies and misguided supporters. I cannot tell which he is, but I expect one more can do little harm. - Jed
