Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Very simple answer to that one. They are waiting for kilowatt-hrs of > thermal gain - continuing for months at a time before testing. IOW … like > Rossi - but with deuterium as the active isotope, producing significant > quantities of helium - for which contamination CANNOT be responsible. >
You mean with Pd+D, I assume. No one claims that Ni+H produces helium. That sure would be nice. But I cannot imagine why anyone would wait for that before critiquing McKubre or Miles or any of the other previous helium results. If you have some reason to critique them why would you hold back? Just because they are low level results? That seems like all the more reason to critique them. That is one of the legitimate problems with them. Contamination cannot be responsible for some of the Italian results where they deliberately began with atmospheric levels of helium. I think Miles also effectively ruled out atmospheric contamination by showing that it would produce far *higher* levels of helium than he measured. > But the fact that the recent Mizuno work found no substantial helium is > telling us a lot about the likelihood of past inaccuracies. > He did not look for helium as far as I know. Maybe I am confused. What experiment do you refer to? - Jed
