I wrote: > > 1. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that > Hoffman suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it > is not 4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling. > 2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that > Hoffman suggests, and there is no nuclear reaction; instead there is a > chemical reaction that is poorly understood -- perhaps Jones's RPF. > > I pressed "send" a little too quickly. Jones's reaction is a nuclear one I suppose, technically speaking, although it sure seems chemical. I should add that what I mean by the Hoffman suggestion is related to the assays that were done by B.M. Oliver at Rockwell International on various cathodes and flasks, including China Lake, reproduced in an appendix in his book. I think the China Lake samples were from Miles, and the suggestion that the levels of helium witnessed were from atmospheric helium leaking in sound a little far-fetched, but this is not something I have any expertise in.
Eric
