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 benefited from much better instrumentation.
Eric
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
