Jed, I've read behind the paywall... It looks like the two D cells made He4 significantly above background He4. One of the H cells started with no He4 and ended with no He 4...
The other H cell had a slowly increasing He4, but it seemed to asymptotic with back ground Atmospheric He4... never higher than background... so I would suspect a leak before He4 generation.. The run time was 95 days, so it would not take much of a leak.... On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is your diagnosis of Krivit? >> > > I don't know what to make of him. I have not been paying attention to him > for some time now. > > I do not know what to make of this article because it is behind a paywall. > I do not know what paper at SRI he refers to. If I had the whole article I > would look up the SRI paper and see how it compares to Krivit's > description. Sometimes he gets it right, but sometimes he gets it wrong. He > needs an editor. > > The part about Pons is silly, as I said. It is common knowledge that they > got heat from H2O. Krivit is presenting it as some sort of revelation. > Anyone who has been following the literature since 1989 will have seen this > many times. I will grant, it does not fit some of the models. Maybe > Hagelstein's is among them? My feeling is that you will never find a model > or a theory that fits all of the data, because some of the data is > mistaken. Some of the claims have only rarely been seen, at small s/n > ratios. They may be mistakes. > > Perhaps F&P were wrong about this. No one knows. You would need a magic > touchstone to know. Until the claim is widely replicated there is no way to > know. > > Other data may not be mistaken, but it may be misinterpreted. For example, > there is no doubt that cold fusion is sometimes accompanied by neutrons, > but Storms believes these are from fractofusion, a prosaic effect. He > thinks they have nothing to do with the cold fusion nuclear reaction. If he > is right then trying to shoehorn the neutrons into a nuclear theory is a > mistake. They are caused by a well-known physical effect that happens to > occur at the same time because this is a highly loaded, stressed metal > lattice. The neutrons are coincidental with a common cause to cold fusion, > but no deep significance. > > - Jed > >
