Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: The safest course is to take Garwin and Lewis and the others at their word and to limit consideration to what was said and written. If I take them at their word, I am forced to conclude they are incompetent fools. Remember that Pons's lawyer sent a stiff letter to Michael Salamon demanding a retraction of a paper by him and others at the University of Utah when they got a null result. He did. It wasn't his finest moment. He was under a lot of pressure. Pons and Fleischmann had used a health dosimeter to measure neutrons despite having had access, should they have wanted it, to faculty in the physics department who could have carried out the difficult measurements and determine whether there was artifact or not; Jones offered similar help, which they did not follow up on. That was before publication, when they were still working informally on a shoestring. They were not expecting any results. They did not want to embarrass themselves or others. Presumably Fleischmann and Pons were so concerned not to give away some important secret . . . They did not want people to know about the research for a variety of reasons. I do not think they considered it an important secret until a short time before publication. For the first few weeks, most people had to rely on faxes of the paper and on news clippings, because Pons and Fleischmann were intentionally hard to get information out of. They were overwhelmed. This was before the Internet as we know it. It was difficult to communicate technical information except on paper. Clean copies of the paper soon circulated. It wasn't a very good paper because they did not know much. Fleischmann, an electrochemist, suggested that the reason they were seeing the excess heat was that deuterium nuclei were being squeezed together due to the close spacing in the palladium lattice. I think that is an over-simplification. Deutrons in the lattice are farther apart than they are in water. Everyone knew that. I think the hypothesis was that two or more were occupying the same lattice position. Also, as Fleischmann pointed out, it is easier to satisfy the Lawson criteria because the deuterons are held together indefinitely. With plasma fusion they come together very briefly. Duration is one the criteria: density, confinement time, and plasma temperature. Pons and Fleischmann tried to go directly to congress and get funding instead of going through the normal grant-making agencies . . . No, they did not. That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs. You are also incorrect in saying they did not pass peer-review before announcing. The paper did pass peer-review and it was in print. Nowadays it would be available instantly but back then it took a week to circulate by snail-mail. (Remember that?) I agree with Ed that they were brave to believe their own calorimetry, given the deficit of neutrons. Martin later said, it is the easiest thing in the world to dismiss your own results; to say 'that must be a mistake' and to ignore it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Hi, Jed, That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs. Who was Magaziner? Ira? Thanks, Lawry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Jed, That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs. Who was Magaziner? Ira? Yes. As I recall it was his idea. Martin was not enthusiastic about going, he later told me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Dear Ed, What you say, seems to confirm the idea that CF was discovered many years too early, before the time when science was prepared to explain it and technology to develop it and therefore it remained immature, underdeveloped and underunderstood so many years. A doctor politicus lady on my Blog has added to this that Cold Fusion has seriously inteferred with the Cold War ending discussions (as a competitor for ITER) so troubles and oppression of CF had many sources Unluck of historical dimensions. Peter On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Here is a wonderful quote about that: Perhaps the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of the soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities. - Benjamin Franklin, from his report to the King of France on Animal Magnetism, 1784 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Not too early, Peter. The problem F-P faced would have existed whenever the discovery was made because the discovery revealed a new and perviously hidden part of reality. They paid the price of forcing everyone to see a new phenomenon. That discovery process always causes problems for the discoverer no matter when it happens. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, What you say, seems to confirm the idea that CF was discovered many years too early, before the time when science was prepared to explain it and technology to develop it and therefore it remained immature, underdeveloped and underunderstood so many years. A doctor politicus lady on my Blog has added to this that Cold Fusion has seriously inteferred with the Cold War ending discussions (as a competitor for ITER) so troubles and oppression of CF had many sources Unluck of historical dimensions. Peter On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The problem changes when the discovery is understood and its value measured? The Founders have understood their own discovery better than anybody else? The previously hidden part of reality is better understood today then at its discovery? “Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” (Henri Poincare) Hpw does this apply to our field? Peter On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Not too early, Peter. The problem F-P faced would have existed whenever the discovery was made because the discovery revealed a new and perviously hidden part of reality. They paid the price of forcing everyone to see a new phenomenon. That discovery process always causes problems for the discoverer no matter when it happens. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, What you say, seems to confirm the idea that CF was discovered many years too early, before the time when science was prepared to explain it and technology to develop it and therefore it remained immature, underdeveloped and underunderstood so many years. A doctor politicus lady on my Blog has added to this that Cold Fusion has seriously inteferred with the Cold War ending discussions (as a competitor for ITER) so troubles and oppression of CF had many sources Unluck of historical dimensions. Peter On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
I agree Peter, however, a house requires a heap of stones to be assembled before it can be built. We now have a heap of stones and various architects are trying to design a house using these stones. Unfortunately, many of the architects ignore most of the stones and want to use wood instead. We do not yet know what the house will look like. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: The problem changes when the discovery is understood and its value measured? The Founders have understood their own discovery better than anybody else? The previously hidden part of reality is better understood today then at its discovery? “Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” (Henri Poincare) Hpw does this apply to our field? Peter On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Not too early, Peter. The problem F-P faced would have existed whenever the discovery was made because the discovery revealed a new and perviously hidden part of reality. They paid the price of forcing everyone to see a new phenomenon. That discovery process always causes problems for the discoverer no matter when it happens. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, What you say, seems to confirm the idea that CF was discovered many years too early, before the time when science was prepared to explain it and technology to develop it and therefore it remained immature, underdeveloped and underunderstood so many years. A doctor politicus lady on my Blog has added to this that Cold Fusion has seriously inteferred with the Cold War ending discussions (as a competitor for ITER) so troubles and oppression of CF had many sources Unluck of historical dimensions. Peter On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Ed that they were brave to believe their own calorimetry, given the deficit of neutrons. Martin later said, it is the easiest thing in the world to dismiss your own results; to say 'that must be a mistake' and to ignore it. The excess heat is a subtle detail that someone unwilling to really look into the matter is not going to get, and it's one that some people can somehow go for years not paying attention to. Neutrons and gammas, etc., by contrast, are nice and flashy and would have made cold fusion easier for nearly anyone to understand. Fleischmann and Pons were stubborn in just the right way to not yield on the point about excess heat. Having this one thing to hold onto did not make the going easy after their announcement. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL nuclear reactions make heat. F-P and many people since 1989 see evidence for a nuclear reaction. That fact alone should have excited scientists. However, we all were taught that a nuclear reaction is not influenced by the chemical environment in which it occurs. Even evidence for changes in decay rate or evidence for hot fusion taking place at greater rate in a chemical environment is rejected or ignored. F-P were forcing a basic concept be changed. Their effort revealed who in science has the ability to think in a creative way, in contrast to who will follow what they are taught no matter what they experience. Unfortunately, the system rewards the less creative. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Ed that they were brave to believe their own calorimetry, given the deficit of neutrons. Martin later said, it is the easiest thing in the world to dismiss your own results; to say 'that must be a mistake' and to ignore it. The excess heat is a subtle detail that someone unwilling to really look into the matter is not going to get, and it's one that some people can somehow go for years not paying attention to. Neutrons and gammas, etc., by contrast, are nice and flashy and would have made cold fusion easier for nearly anyone to understand. Fleischmann and Pons were stubborn in just the right way to not yield on the point about excess heat. Having this one thing to hold onto did not make the going easy after their announcement. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
You are letting your common sense distort the true vision of reality. It is difficult to come to a true understanding of what is real using the limited perception of your senses. The world of the fish is different from the world of the bird. The world of water is different from the world of air. If you only measure the pressure in the air, it will surprise you to read it differently in the water. Each phase of matter: air, water, plasma, solid, is another world that we must understand and adapt to those differences; each a completely new, and unexpected world with its own unique rules. When one views the world as a whole and does not make allowances for the differences between the phases of matter, then confusion abounds. We live in many worlds at the same time, and it is a challenge to perceive them each in the totality of their particular context. People like Mills has made the ‘their is only one world mistake’. But there are at least 500 different phases of matter; each phase lives in its own world with its own rules”. To understand each of those particular worlds, one must study that realm in its own context. When we look at the world of quantum mechanics, our world get more complex and interesting. (Phys.org)—“Forget solid, liquid, and gas: there are in fact more than 500 phases of matter. In a major paper in today's issue of Science, Perimeter Faculty member Xiao-Gang Wen reveals a modern reclassification of all of them. Using modern mathematics, Wen and collaborators reveal a new system which can, at last, successfully classify symmetry-protected phases of matter. Their new classification system will provide insight about these quantum phases of matter, which may in turn increase our ability to design states of matter for use in superconductors or quantum computers. This paper, titled, Symmetry-Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Systems, is a revealing look at the intricate and fascinating world of quantum entanglement, and an important step toward a modern reclassification of all phases of matter.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-phases-phase.html#jCp The world inside the Ni/H reactor is far different than what we know here in the “real world”. Like an open minded and adaptable intergalactic explorer, in order to make sense of Ni/H reactions, one must study what is happening in that world with reason and imagination. In like manor, the world of the Plasmonics experiments is its own world with its own phases of matter and with its own rules of the road. In another complication, here are some new rules that apply to the nano world of the Ni/H reactor where light and matter can join together to for a new phase of matter Nanostructures for Surface Plasmon enhanced light emission *Mònica Alfonso Larrégola * *September 2008 * http://upcommons.upc.edu/pfc/bitstream/2099.1/6656/1/Diploma%20catal%C3%A0.pdf Mixing up and simplifying all the various worlds that we must live in will lead to hopeless confusion. I think this “there is only one world” outlook is the mistake that Mills has made. Don’t make the same mistake. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL nuclear reactions make heat. As Martin often pointed out, radioactivity was first detected from the heat it produces, and calorimetry remains an excellent method of measuring it. I do agree that heat is subtle. I do not think Martin agreed either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
While what you say is true, Jed, to make detectable heat, a fusion rate of about 10^9 events/sec would be required. To detect the radiation, only about 10 events/sec would be needed. Heat is used to measure radioactive decay, but only when a large amount of the decaying material is present. The heat F-P detect would require a reaction rate of about 10^12 events/sec, which as the skeptics pointed out would produce enough radiation to kill. The skeptics did not consider that most of this radiation did not have enough energy to escape the apparatus, which is still not fully appreciated. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL nuclear reactions make heat. As Martin often pointed out, radioactivity was first detected from the heat it produces, and calorimetry remains an excellent method of measuring it. I do agree that heat is subtle. I do not think Martin agreed either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. OK Axil, let me use a different vocabulary to describe what you described. You describe a photon as entering a space, i.e. a material, where is gains energy and is reemitted and detected in the macro world. What happens in the small space is based on imagination. I can imagine many ways to explain this process. The different explanations depend on the conditions. None of the explanations are permitted to assume mass-energy was created. The extra energy had to come from an identified source. In other words, the laws of thermodynamics have to apply no matter how QM is used. That is my point The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. I agree. However, the devil is in the details. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. I agree. That was my point. Unfortunately, this is not how the game of science is played when applied to LENR. Ed Storms On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
In order to learn the rules, you first have to take a risk and imagine what the rules might be and this might mean imagining new rules that conflict with established rules. Imagination is not undermining the search for an explanation. Dogma about this or that rule is undermining the search for an explanation. Harry On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis (I'm not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would have benefited from much better instrumentation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and gain strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of photons unless you are suggesting that more and more of these enter the space as the fields build up. Is that what you mean? If so, then the total energy is increasing due to addition of new photons to the old ones that remain trapped. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6000#p102568 Actual pictures of this photon process is included in this explanatory post. The theory of Ni/H type LENR that I support is based on 100% valid experimentally based nanoplasmonic science. It could well be different but o don't care, I leave explaining Pd/D lenr to others as it will never be productive...just my opinion. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. OK Axil, let me use a different vocabulary to describe what you described. You describe a photon as entering a space, i.e. a material, where is gains energy and is reemitted and detected in the macro world. What happens in the small space is based on imagination. I can imagine many ways to explain this process. The different explanations depend on the conditions. None of the explanations are permitted to assume mass-energy was created. The extra energy had to come from an identified source. In other words, the laws of thermodynamics have to apply no matter how QM is used. That is my point The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. I agree. However, the devil is in the details. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. I agree. That was my point. Unfortunately, this is not how the game of science is played when applied to LENR. Ed Storms On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
You have the idea right. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and gain strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of photons unless you are suggesting that more and more of these enter the space as the fields build up. Is that what you mean? If so, then the total energy is increasing due to addition of new photons to the old ones that remain trapped. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
This is an interesting way to look at nature. First you make observations of what is occurring. Then you imagine why this may be so. Finally, you continue to watch the behavior of the experiment and see that all the observations that you collect match your imagined process. I like to stress the system in well defined ways to encourage it to veer from theory. Most of the education occurs when nature does not quite match your theory. This is where the skeptical physicists are making a mistake by not attempting to understand why the LENR processes do not match their current theories. This is a missed opportunity for them. I suspect that in their cases, all of the observations are erroneous and it would be a waste of their time to prove that this is the so. What will it take to get their attention if it has not bee possible up to the present considering all of the supporting evidence? Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent In order to learn the rules, you first have to take a risk and imagine what the rules might be and this might mean imagining new rules that conflict with established rules. Imagination is not undermining the search for an explanation. Dogma about this or that rule is undermining the search for an explanation. Harry On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
I agree, Harry. However, since what can be imagined is infinite and some rules have to be accepted, some limitations have to be imposed to avoid insanity. A creative 10 year old can give you an explanation for anything, but would you accept the explanation just because it did not follow the rules? Also, well documented behavior has to be taken into account. So, just where to YOU draw the line? Do you have any rules you would not violate? Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 1:01 PM, H Veeder wrote: In order to learn the rules, you first have to take a risk and imagine what the rules might be and this might mean imagining new rules that conflict with established rules. Imagination is not undermining the search for an explanation. Dogma about this or that rule is undermining the search for an explanation. Harry On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL nuclear reactions make heat. As Martin often pointed out, radioactivity was first detected from the heat it produces, Wasn't it first detected by the effect it had on photographic plates? Harry
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
OK, now the question comes up about how many photons can be captured inside such a tiny space before it self destructs. In normal classical circumstances the tiny space you speak of would be called a cavity resonator. These have a Q associated with them that is related to the stored energy per cycle compared to the escaping or loss energy and Q can be quite large. The electric and magnetic fields trapped within reach extreme levels with high Q resonators when power is continuously added. These fields tend to keep rising until a balance is established between input power and energy loss. Do you suspect that the fields trapped in this manner reach levels that initiate LENR reactions? Which one is the most important;electric or magnetic? How would this lead to a reaction that is different than hot fusion? I can see some possibilities, but what do you suspect? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent You have the idea right. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and gain strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of photons unless you are suggesting that more and more of these enter the space as the fields build up. Is that what you mean? If so, then the total energy is increasing due to addition of new photons to the old ones that remain trapped. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Harry, I don't want to speak for Axil, but from my understanding it is theorized that some manner of photonic-BEC can form in the Nano-cavity. I'm not sure whether it assists fusion or the photons themselves create some novel variety of EM energy. It relies, in ways, on Kim's BEC cluster theory. The radiation is thought to be neutralized to IR, etc. by A) some form of coherent wave function between electrons, and B) dissipated momentum amongst the cluster. Axil can correct me if I'm wrong. It is an interesting model but speculative, like almost every theory to some degree. Cavity QED seems to have some relevance to LENR in my opinion, but if only to provide the appropriate initiation energy and geometrical surface environment for a nuclear active structure (i.e. cluster, hydroton, etc.) to form. Regards, John On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:25 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, now the question comes up about how many photons can be captured inside such a tiny space before it self destructs. In normal classical circumstances the tiny space you speak of would be called a cavity resonator. These have a Q associated with them that is related to the stored energy per cycle compared to the escaping or loss energy and Q can be quite large. The electric and magnetic fields trapped within reach extreme levels with high Q resonators when power is continuously added. These fields tend to keep rising until a balance is established between input power and energy loss. Do you suspect that the fields trapped in this manner reach levels that initiate LENR reactions? Which one is the most important;electric or magnetic? How would this lead to a reaction that is different than hot fusion? I can see some possibilities, but what do you suspect? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent You have the idea right. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and gain strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of photons unless you are suggesting that more and more of these enter the space as the fields build up. Is that what you mean? If so, then the total energy is increasing due to addition of new photons to the old ones that remain trapped. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as the condition persists. This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life. The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that particular reality. When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that game. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
It has been experimentally verified that the energy density reached in these photonic traps reach a high EMF level of 10 to the 15 power watts per square centimeter before the chemical based detectors used for EMF power density measurements are destroyed. The experimenters have not found a way to measure power levels higher than this chemical detector destruction level. But these Nanoantenna experiments are not ideal. The Ni/H reactor is an ideal photonic energy concentrator where far more power density can be produced. The Reason, nickel and hydrogen are used. It is possible that the magnetic field produced by these photon cavities in the Ni/H reactor are between a minimum of 10 to the 5 power Tesla and a probable level of 10 to the 12 power Tesla at nano dimensions of the probable nano cavity size based on the DGT revelation that 1.6 T was measured at 18 cms.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The levels that you list are quite large. If the magnetic fields emanating from each of the nano antennas were of that magnitude I would be concerned that they would generate a force against their neighbors that would rip the material apart. Maybe one day you can explain how these nano sized constructions co exist. Light photons or IR ones have oscillating magnetic and electric fields and if a very large number were trapped in one of these tiny resonators I can imagine how those fields might disrupt nearby nuclei and the orbital electrons. The hydrogen free proton could easily be accelerated by the electric field vector which is oscillating at a frequency that is relatively low when compared to nuclear events. The amount of energy given to the protons could well reach a level adequate to breech the coulomb barrier if enough photons were trapped.(~1?) But if this happens, are we to expect the behavior seen in hot fusion? This may have been discussed earlier, but the magnetic field in this region due to those photons would also be very intense and this might be the avenue for the release of the fusion energy. Earlier someone felt that time was not available for the nuclear event to interact with nearby particles due to the time it takes electromagnetic energy to reach those particles and return. This was shown to be untrue since the local nucleus would immediately interact with the intense magnetic field that exists in its vicinity and is not dependent upon the source particles directly. I think of the process as depending upon the past behavior of those particles. So, a very intense local electric field working with its associated very intense magnetic field might be able to breech the coulomb barrier and allow the energy released to be delivered via the magnetic field. That is an interesting concept, but I am not confident that it could happen that way. The interaction of an extremely large, slowly changing(IR frequency) local magnetic field might be the missing link. We know that some mechanism must exist to extract the fusion energy without requiring gamma rays or neutrons and perhaps this particular idea is worthy of consideration. I read something about an X-Ray laser the other day. The device used a particle accelerator and undulating magnetic field to generate the rays. Perhaps this would be a good place to begin. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent It has beenexperimentally verified that the energy density reached in these photonic trapsreach a high EMF level of 10 to the 15 power watts per square centimeter beforethe chemical based detectors used for EMF power density measurements are destroyed. Theexperimenters have not found a way to measure power levels higher than thischemical detector destruction level. But these Nanoantenna experiments are notideal. The Ni/H reactor is an ideal photonic energy concentrator where far morepower density can be produced. The Reason, nickel and hydrogen are used. It is possible thatthe magnetic field produced by these photon cavities in the Ni/H reactor arebetween a minimum of 10 to the 5 power Tesla and a probable level of 10 to the12 power Tesla at nano dimensions of the probable nano cavity size based onthe DGT revelation that 1.6 T was measured at 18 cms.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
to be untrue since the local nucleus would immediately interact with the intense magnetic field that exists in its vicinity and is not dependent upon the source particles directly. I think of the process as depending upon the past behavior of those particles. So, a very intense local electric field working with its associated very intense magnetic field might be able to breech the coulomb barrier and allow the energy released to be delivered via the magnetic field. That is an interesting concept, but I am not confident that it could happen that way. The interaction of an extremely large, slowly changing(IR frequency) local magnetic field might be the missing link. We know that some mechanism must exist to extract the fusion energy without requiring gamma rays or neutrons and perhaps this particular idea is worthy of consideration. I read something about an X-Ray laser the other day. The device used a particle accelerator and undulating magnetic field to generate the rays. Perhaps this would be a good place to begin. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent It has been experimentally verified that the energy density reached in these photonic traps reach a high EMF level of 10 to the 15 power watts per square centimeter before the chemical based detectors used for EMF power density measurements are destroyed. The experimenters have not found a way to measure power levels higher than this chemical detector destruction level. But these Nanoantenna experiments are not ideal. The Ni/H reactor is an ideal photonic energy concentrator where far more power density can be produced. The Reason, nickel and hydrogen are used. It is possible that the magnetic field produced by these photon cavities in the Ni/H reactor are between a minimum of 10 to the 5 power Tesla and a probable level of 10 to the 12 power Tesla at nano dimensions of the probable nano cavity size based on the DGT revelation that 1.6 T was measured at 18 cms.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
the rule about not peeing into the wind. ;-) Harry On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, Harry. However, since what can be imagined is infinite and some rules have to be accepted, some limitations have to be imposed to avoid insanity. A creative 10 year old can give you an explanation for anything, but would you accept the explanation just because it did not follow the rules? Also, well documented behavior has to be taken into account. So, just where to YOU draw the line? Do you have any rules you would not violate? Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 1:01 PM, H Veeder wrote: In order to learn the rules, you first have to take a risk and imagine what the rules might be and this might mean imagining new rules that conflict with established rules. Imagination is not undermining the search for an explanation. Dogma about this or that rule is undermining the search for an explanation. Harry On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described as being insane. In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has infinite possibilities. Ed Storms Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron reactions. . This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. Is this what you mean by reality? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back with the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being proposed at that time look desperate and silly. I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was demonstrated but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is overwhelmingly obvious. Ed Storms On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for the p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the others at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
This remind me the controversial concept of incommensurability of Thomas Kuhn, that I conforms practically. As many show them, and even more deeply that what Kuhn says, a paradigm is admitted nearly only when it is industrial ... the other case, similar, is when laymen can have access to so clear data that the denial by elite is impossible. Industrial application is such a case. In a way the old paradigm surrender only by foreign force. this observed fact have been strawman-ized by the relativist of science... those guys who pretend that scientific theory are purely linked to political interests, forget that the reality most of the time have the last word in the debate of vested interests. however it can take centuries, and it does not always happen in some very political/funded domain like economy, medicine... 2014/1/2 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com It just appears that many people maintain some level of doubt regardless of the evidence before them. They always suspect that a trick of some sort is being conducted. Consider the major problem we recently had convincing the skeptics that the latest Rossi 3rd party test was legitimate. I seriously doubt that any of them changed their minds even though they could prove nothing of substance. There is always room for doubt when a subject defies your belief system. I think that his behavior is consistent with many peoples reactions. I am not confident that he would have accepted any amount of excess power as beyond trickery. It would have helped had the excess been 100%, but that might still have not been sufficient for him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He should be, though. Because as he himself says: The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak. If he agrees that is true then there is no doubt the effect is real. He does not give any reason to doubt this. He gives disingenuous reasons to ignore this fact, starting with: We also had extensive discussions of data from one of these cells, which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Garwin is a scientist and by training tends to be very cautious. The excuses that he used to doubt the excess power measurement of course are lame, but we should note that he included them. This is the type of behavior one might expect from someone who just witnessed a magic trick that he is unable to figure out. Or someone that stumbled upon a new process unknown to standard physics that might take a long time to explain. His mind would be torn between believing his observations and assuming that they can be understood if sufficient time and effort is applied to that issue. I suspect that most scientists in that position would hedge their bets for the moment and that appears to be what Garwin has done. He refuses to believe that cold fusion of any type is possible due to his training and vast experience. Surely the people conducting the experiment made some type of blunder, even though it appears quite subtle. He likely feels that if given enough time, he will be able to prove the error. In this case he does not have enough time to waste so he merely states what he witnessed. This does not mean that he agrees with the conclusion that we all accept. If we could confine him within a room for a couple of months, or maybe years in his case, where all of his energy is expended in the conduction of more and more precise measurements, he will reluctantly change his mind. That is about the only way this will occur. I strongly believe that his trip to McKubre's lab was not to find the truth, but instead to teach him the errors of his methods. There was zero chance for Garwin to announce that cold fusion were real under any circumstances. That denial continues to this day. Being on the wrong side of history is the price he will pay for his reluctance to accept the proof before him. So far, the cost has been negligible to him. But keep in mind that he believes exactly the same thing about scientists who continue to work in this field. Unfortunately many of them have paid a dear price for their efforts with little reward. One day the table will turn. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 9:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The lesson of Benabou model is between both your visions. Groupthink : Collective Delusions In Organizations and Markets(Paper IOM 2012-07 by Roland Benabou)http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf in fact those guy are intelligent, they know they are toasted on longterm, they know they will be toasted faster if they open their eyes. so all their IQ is used to close their brain, their eyes. Intelligence and competence have nothing to do. Subprime crisis was predictable by a junior economist, just seeing the correlation of assets... LENR could be accepted as not impossible by someone with lattice QM education...at list not impossible for just 2-body argument (maybe the best lattice QM theorist could ruleout some LENR, but we have enough occupied to manage semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, and they have no time to disprove LENR)... like you I am sure that it is not a problem of competence. question is if they - made a bet that it was so improbable, that they decided to cook 2 chemist for lunch, taking a slight risk of being wrong... but no, cannot be wrong see Lewis... - uncounsciously feel that it was so damaging for their funding, their physicist ego, that they denied the reality, blocking any capacity of their brain. that capacity to block your brain is very common http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf delusion start after a period of rationality, when commitment, and codependence are too huge to allow individual stepback. Beaudette have a different theory, it is that they lived in the unreal worl of particle physics for too long and were not able to understand real experiment lab work, with shit happens, hard to replicate, unreliable... one exmaple of their incompetence in experimental work that shocked me, as modest engineer, is tha they asked for IDENTICAL replication... it is stupid, since you can also replicate artifacts... and difficulties to replicate is never a surprise... hard to imagine one can be so stupid, but some professions, like judge or physicist have a problem with reality. that is education if not brainwashing during studies, as Thomas Kuhn describe. 2014/1/4 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
*Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair: *It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!* On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: The lesson of Benabou model is between both your visions. Groupthink : Collective Delusions In Organizations and Markets(Paper IOM 2012-07 by Roland Benabou)http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf in fact those guy are intelligent, they know they are toasted on longterm, they know they will be toasted faster if they open their eyes. so all their IQ is used to close their brain, their eyes. Intelligence and competence have nothing to do. Subprime crisis was predictable by a junior economist, just seeing the correlation of assets... LENR could be accepted as not impossible by someone with lattice QM education...at list not impossible for just 2-body argument (maybe the best lattice QM theorist could ruleout some LENR, but we have enough occupied to manage semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, and they have no time to disprove LENR)... like you I am sure that it is not a problem of competence. question is if they - made a bet that it was so improbable, that they decided to cook 2 chemist for lunch, taking a slight risk of being wrong... but no, cannot be wrong see Lewis... - uncounsciously feel that it was so damaging for their funding, their physicist ego, that they denied the reality, blocking any capacity of their brain. that capacity to block your brain is very common http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf delusion start after a period of rationality, when commitment, and codependence are too huge to allow individual stepback. Beaudette have a different theory, it is that they lived in the unreal worl of particle physics for too long and were not able to understand real experiment lab work, with shit happens, hard to replicate, unreliable... one exmaple of their incompetence in experimental work that shocked me, as modest engineer, is tha they asked for IDENTICAL replication... it is stupid, since you can also replicate artifacts... and difficulties to replicate is never a surprise... hard to imagine one can be so stupid, but some professions, like judge or physicist have a problem with reality. that is education if not brainwashing during studies, as Thomas Kuhn describe. 2014/1/4 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. The world is full of people without integrity. In academia, high mighty professors engage in all kinds of unethical behavior, such as plagiarism. They reject papers from young researchers during peer-review, and then steal the ideas. That's how they got high mighty. Scientists have the notion that they are especially honest and they must be truthful because the scientific method always works in the end, and falsehoods or errors will be found out. I have seen no evidence for this. Scientists get away with lying more often people in many other professions do. Programmers, farmers and even bankers are more honest, in my experience. I think Garwin is being disingenuous. I would also point to the Upton Sinclair quote Axil noted: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. Yes. That leaves disingenuous, as I said. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Yup. These days Peter Hagelstein sounds almost as cynical as you do. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
I hope you are wrong in this case Jed. To intentionally delay the introduction of LENR products and the wonders that they will release is criminal! Many lives hang in the balance. We may harbor ill will towards Garwin and Lewis, but I find it difficult to believe that they are of that low caliber. It did anger me to view that early meeting where Lewis attempted to ridicule PF by making unsupported claims about their techniques and data. His behavior was more like I would expect from a bully instead of an experienced scientist. Surely you do not believe that he was attacking them just to ensure his job security. I gathered that the attack was due to his belief that the pair was incompetent and their procedures were amateurish. It would have served everyone better had Lewis taken time to discuss his questions in private with the guys instead of that public forum. This is especially true since Lewis apparently did not realize the quality of the work PF performed. If the hot fusion scientists actually made an effort to derail the cold fusion work while knowing it was valid they should all be immediately fired and disgraced. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but to me your integrity is important and I would rather find a new job due to mine being eliminated by a new discovery than to deny that discovery. I will loose all respect for these guys if what you say is true. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 7:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. The world is full of people without integrity. In academia, high mighty professors engage in all kinds of unethical behavior, such as plagiarism. They reject papers from young researchers during peer-review, and then steal the ideas. That's how they got high mighty. Scientists have the notion that they are especially honest and they must be truthful because the scientific method always works in the end, and falsehoods or errors will be found out. I have seen no evidence for this. Scientists get away with lying more often people in many other professions do. Programmers, farmers and even bankers are more honest, in my experience. I think Garwin is being disingenuous. I would also point to the Upton Sinclair quote Axil noted: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Its hard to understand why these guys didn't just meet up individually and feel out their concerns. I know that at some point the normative pressures are so great that if anyone so much as whispers something in private that might be construed as defection in from the ranks, that it would immediately call for a hue and cry -- but it just seems incredible to me that the normative pressures were *that* intense. I mean self-preservation instincts should kick in with something more than Goodstein's mealy-mouthed review which will not really protect him and, indeed, could draw scrutinizing attention to him in the event that the truth breaks free. Even someone like Lewis could have, once he saw evidence that forewarned him he had contributed to a catastrophic institutional failure, done something as innocuous as try to run an experiment that demonstrated the errors he purported FP made. He could even have deliberately done something wrong in the paper that, during peer review, would have caused it to never achieve publication and at least he could have pointed to his attempt to actually do legitimate science. Moreover, this could have brought him into contact with other doubters of the theocracy's catechism -- all playing devil's advocate of course! Once you get enough of these devils advocates together its simple enough for them to get the critical mass necessary to invoke Ramsey as protector of their heresy, so long as they all came out in unison with their declaration that some more serious work needed to be done to something other than address empirical results with theoretic objections. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Since Three Mile Island and bolstered by the other periodic nuclear based disasters, the nuclear industry (aka the cult of the neutron) has been increasingly embattled by the green technologies and a lack of political support. They hate the greens and the greens hate them. More broadly, the nuclear engineer is hostile to any non-nuclear energy technology that is a threat to his field, his educational investment, and his livelihood. For example, any advance in the solar panel of a wind mill is subject to ridicule and negative propaganda, the facts be dammed. They see the decline in their prospects as a lack of propaganda skills to support their profession. From the perspective of an uninterested observer I have learned from firsthand experience, these guys are the most reactionary and intolerant out of all the LENR antagonists. Their zealotry in their positions are perplexing in its religious intensity and their position is based on unwavering faith. Both their education and their interest speak against the possibility that LENR could be real in any way shape or form. And as far as arrogance goes, it is an inbred prejudice and confidence in their intellectual superiority that is almost universal in that profession and very deeply rooted. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its hard to understand why these guys didn't just meet up individually and feel out their concerns. I know that at some point the normative pressures are so great that if anyone so much as whispers something in private that might be construed as defection in from the ranks, that it would immediately call for a hue and cry -- but it just seems incredible to me that the normative pressures were *that* intense. I mean self-preservation instincts should kick in with something more than Goodstein's mealy-mouthed review which will not really protect him and, indeed, could draw scrutinizing attention to him in the event that the truth breaks free. Even someone like Lewis could have, once he saw evidence that forewarned him he had contributed to a catastrophic institutional failure, done something as innocuous as try to run an experiment that demonstrated the errors he purported FP made. He could even have deliberately done something wrong in the paper that, during peer review, would have caused it to never achieve publication and at least he could have pointed to his attempt to actually do legitimate science. Moreover, this could have brought him into contact with other doubters of the theocracy's catechism -- all playing devil's advocate of course! Once you get enough of these devils advocates together its simple enough for them to get the critical mass necessary to invoke Ramsey as protector of their heresy, so long as they all came out in unison with their declaration that some more serious work needed to be done to something other than address empirical results with theoretic objections. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The safest course is to take Garwin and Lewis and the others at their word and to limit consideration to what was said and written. One can have one's suspicions about their genuine motives, but this is only speculation in the final analysis. Remember that Pons's lawyer sent a stiff letter to Michael Salamon demanding a retraction of a paper by him and others at the University of Utah when they got a null result. That is not the normal behavior of academics working in an academic context. There was a series of exchanges between Pons and Fleischmann with a team at MIT establishing to nearly everyone's satisfaction that something funky had happened with the gamma spectrum that was submitted as one line of evidence for neutrons with the original 1989 note, as well as problems with a second peak that was provided as a replacement. Petrasso stuck to the explanation that they must have seen some kind of experimental artifact, but he was surely tempted to draw more serious conclusions. Pons and Fleischmann had used a health dosimeter to measure neutrons despite having had access, should they have wanted it, to faculty in the physics department who could have carried out the difficult measurements and determine whether there was artifact or not; Jones offered similar help, which they did not follow up on. Presumably Fleischmann and Pons were so concerned not to give away some important secret that they dared not involve anyone else, and instead carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field, for it would have been slipshod indeed if it had simply not occurred to them to seek out help. There was a table in the 1989 paper in which values for the power they saw had been silently extrapolated onto a different scale from the relatively small values actually observed in the experiments to much larger ones. This silent extrapolation was only discovered later on by others after some investigative work. Pons and Fleischmann left off Marvin Hawkins as the third author of the paper, even though Hawkins had done a lot of the lab work on which the paper was based. Pons and Fleischmann announced their discovery at a news conference prior to having gone through any kind of peer review. They were very circumspect about how they had gotten their results, and there was insufficient information in their paper for others to really know all of what they had done. For the first few weeks, most people had to rely on faxes of the paper and on news clippings, because Pons and Fleischmann were intentionally hard to get information out of. Fleischmann, an electrochemist, suggested that the reason they were seeing the excess heat was that deuterium nuclei were being squeezed together due to the close spacing in the palladium lattice. Pons and Fleischmann tried to go directly to congress and get funding instead of going through the normal grant-making agencies, a step that was predictably perceived as underhanded. In retrospect, there are mitigating factors behind many of these details. But it is not hard to see how some of the more skeptical folks could draw the conclusion that Pons and Fleischmann were either up to something or at least were not careful in their work. Whatever happened in 1989, it was not normal, boring science. To my mind Pons and Fleischmann were uncareful and made some glaring mistakes, and this caught some scientific gatekeepers off guard. The latter reacted swiftly and harshly, and then found it hard to walk back their position when more evidence came to light. They had overreacted so much that to fully retract what they had said would be to risk their credibility in a field where mistakes are poorly tolerated. The conflict of interest that this situation gave rise to prevented them from pursuing the matter with enough vigor to ever fully convince themselves that they had jumped to conclusions. This might be dishonesty or a lack of integrity or something else very bad, or it might be normal human behavior. At the present time, each scientist is ultimately responsible for his or her own conclusions and has to make decisions about whether or not to look beyond all of the initial distractions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
2014/1/2 Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com Garwin and Lewis is it linked to that report http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/garwin.shtml what an irony that Lewis, who seems to be THE CAUSE of general LENR denial, admitted in silence that it worked.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He apparently has witnessed the small signal detected by the apparatus, but expresses caution that this result might contain measurement errors of an unknown type. This reminds me of the feeling you get when you do not believe in something but see evidence before you that it is real. Since, he also sees evidence against these systems being conducted at other labs, a large cloud obscures his view. My conclusion is that this paper does not represent an endorsement by these guys. It merely leaves the door open a tiny bit that the effect may be real. But, I get the impression that they do not completely accept the results and that it would take a much more extensive review to come to a positive conclusion. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 3:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent 2014/1/2 Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com Garwin and Lewis is it linked to that report http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/garwin.shtml what an irony that Lewis, who seems to be THE CAUSE of general LENR denial, admitted in silence that it worked.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He should be, though. Because as he himself says: The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak. If he agrees that is true then there is no doubt the effect is real. He does not give any reason to doubt this. He gives disingenuous reasons to ignore this fact, starting with: We also had extensive discussions of data from one of these cells, which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. It just appears that many people maintain some level of doubt regardless of the evidence before them. They always suspect that a trick of some sort is being conducted. Consider the major problem we recently had convincing the skeptics that the latest Rossi 3rd party test was legitimate. I seriously doubt that any of them changed their minds even though they could prove nothing of substance. There is always room for doubt when a subject defies your belief system. I think that his behavior is consistent with many peoples reactions. I am not confident that he would have accepted any amount of excess power as beyond trickery. It would have helped had the excess been 100%, but that might still have not been sufficient for him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He should be, though. Because as he himself says: The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak. If he agrees that is true then there is no doubt the effect is real. He does not give any reason to doubt this. He gives disingenuous reasons to ignore this fact, starting with: We also had extensive discussions of data from one of these cells, which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Two at least included Richard Garwin and Nathan Lewis in 1993. The report was quite positive overall. Yet, as expected, both Garwin and Lewis kept to themselves and sat idle as a validated science continued to be ignorantly chastised. Their report can be located on New Energy Times if you Google it or are willing to dig through the site. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, In Excess Heat (chapter 10 p171=141), Beaudette talk of 4 scientists (1 alosn,e and a team of 3) who visited McKubre, inspected all, and seen no problem, then stay silent... who was they, is there any report ? Sometimes peer review takes the form of visits to a working laboratory. Mike McKubre’s laboratory did successful anomalous power experiments from 1989 to 1997 and continuing. He was visited twice by scientists who were eminently qualified in the appropriate technology but who were completely out of the public eye. The first visitor was an electrochemist fully qualified in calorimetry. A day was spent studying the experimental and measurement processes, and looking at the equipment operation in the laboratory. This previously outspoken critic found nothing wrong with the experimental work. If the results showed excess energy, the visitor could see no basis on which that result might be wrong. He so informed McKubre of his conclusion. The second visit was by a team of three scientists. One was a well-experienced nuclear experimental physicist. The other two were senior electrochemists, one of whom had written several textbooks in the field. They enjoyed the same visiting routine as the first visitor. They arrived at the same endpoint as the first visitor, that there was nothing wrong with the calorimetry. They so informed McKubre. Then they were silent, completely silent. Were their individual reputations so important to them that they could not be put at risk by reporting publicly what they had found? What they had found was that McKubre’s experiments did reveal the existence of anomalous power as far as these experts were able to tell. Their silence was unethical in view of the importance of the matter at hand and the special expertise the four could bring to bear on the subject.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Did Lewis, in his report, describe which members of SRI would make a good football team? On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Two at least included Richard Garwin and Nathan Lewis in 1993. The report was quite positive overall. Yet, as expected, both Garwin and Lewis kept to themselves and sat idle as a validated science continued to be ignorantly chastised. Their report can be located on New Energy Times if you Google it or are willing to dig through the site. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, In Excess Heat (chapter 10 p171=141), Beaudette talk of 4 scientists (1 alosn,e and a team of 3) who visited McKubre, inspected all, and seen no problem, then stay silent... who was they, is there any report ? Sometimes peer review takes the form of visits to a working laboratory. Mike McKubre’s laboratory did successful anomalous power experiments from 1989 to 1997 and continuing. He was visited twice by scientists who were eminently qualified in the appropriate technology but who were completely out of the public eye. The first visitor was an electrochemist fully qualified in calorimetry. A day was spent studying the experimental and measurement processes, and looking at the equipment operation in the laboratory. This previously outspoken critic found nothing wrong with the experimental work. If the results showed excess energy, the visitor could see no basis on which that result might be wrong. He so informed McKubre of his conclusion. The second visit was by a team of three scientists. One was a well-experienced nuclear experimental physicist. The other two were senior electrochemists, one of whom had written several textbooks in the field. They enjoyed the same visiting routine as the first visitor. They arrived at the same endpoint as the first visitor, that there was nothing wrong with the calorimetry. They so informed McKubre. Then they were silent, completely silent. Were their individual reputations so important to them that they could not be put at risk by reporting publicly what they had found? What they had found was that McKubre’s experiments did reveal the existence of anomalous power as far as these experts were able to tell. Their silence was unethical in view of the importance of the matter at hand and the special expertise the four could bring to bear on the subject.
