interesting debate... Mizuno support of experimental results for some, implies support of his theory, thus critic of the experimental results of those whose result challenge Mizuno theory...
I think that premature focus on theory is THE problem. I have re read the history of cold fusion, Huizenga doctrine, and I'm fed up... ACCEPT EVIDENCES first FORGET THEORY until you have enough coherent experimental results that match well. CHALLENGE EXPERIMENTS CAUTIOUSLY probably Mizuno and Miles and DeNinno and Iwamura/takahashi are all right on their experimental results... and all wrong on their theory... that is normal. they have done good job, experimentally... and theory is premature. I just notice He4/heat corelation is more replicated than Mizuno, so we should be more cautious with Mizuno... but theory is not an implicit excuse to challenge an experiment. My way to analyse experimental results is not one by one (that is the job of reviewers), but on the trends, the behavior of the experiments. You can guess if a pile of experiments is based on a reality , a groupthink, an artifact, just by the way the results change from experimental parameters and setup. langmuir criteria were based on the same idea, and Beaudette explais well how it's criteria don't apply at all to cold fusion. The way helium did not appear in blank test, and correlate well with heat, is a much stronger evidence than one 10x background result. ENEA/SRI/NRL replications in F&P cells is better evidence than E-cat test at kW level. Relation to the dose in epidemiology is a key factor, as in experimental science. anyway I agree that theory is fun, but even if we dream that one theory is good and that some dissenting experiments are badly done, it should be proposed as very speculative, questioning, polite... Experiments are much more solid than theories. Not definitive, but much more solid than theories. That is Beaudette Doctrine. I support it. 2014-09-18 23:02 GMT+02:00 Ruby <r...@hush.com>: > On 9/18/14, 6:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR > advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper > question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science – not > promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper > understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes > against the grain. > > At some point, we have to have confidence in the results from a lab. Dr. > Miles has defended his results successfully from all sides, and pays > attention to details to do it. As a former Navy scientist, he had access > to what he needed. He does not state conclusions lightly. > > For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas > overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But > again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and > we should have that report in a matter of months. > > That is your prerogative. However, the fact the the heat-helium > correlation has been made multiple times since Miles' work, should factor > into anyone's thinking on the matter. In particular, the work SRI did is > exemplary. The correlation is strong. In any other field, this would be > clearly seen as fact. > > In cold fusion, it seems the lack of discipline, the lack of historical > knowledge, the lack of knowledge of the experimental data, combined with > the euphoria of social media, allows any unfounded criticism to be > amplified beyond it's usefulness. > > The think I find most alarming is the “circle the wagons” mentality > that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno’s work. It is > anti-scientific and counter-productive. > > Neither I or Miles have said anything about Mizuno. I am not sure who is > "circling the wagons". To quell confusion in the minds of lurkers, and > those who might positively contribute to the field, I am setting the > record straight: heat and helium are correlated for Pd-D systems by > professional scientists from agencies and institutes who've successfully > defended their work for over two decades. > > What is means is there is a clear nuclear effect from safe, table-top > cells. And when deuterium is the fuel, helium is a result, a result that > correlates with the mass-energy expected from DD fusion. This does not > point to any particular theory, only a correlation of effects. > > See pages 86-91 in Storms' The Science of LENR published 2007 by World > Scientific for the historical facts on the heat-helium correlation, a very > real and documented effect. > http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425 > > I will end my participation in this discussion here. It's back to work > for me, again. Sigh. > > I wish you success in your research efforts, Jones. > > Ruby > > > > *From:* Ruby > > > >From Dr. Melvin Miles: > > *"Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 > measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in > highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily > measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with > an accuracy of 0.1 ppb.*" > > Ruby > > > > -- > Ruby Carat > r...@coldfusionnow.org > United States 1-707-616-4894 > Skype ruby-carat > www.coldfusionnow.org > >
