N-rays were observed before WWI mostly by French scientists. They were debunked by a visiting American physicist Wood. The case is often cited as an example of "pathological science". It is an interesting story. This analysis raises some moral questions about the manner in which they were debunked :
The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood *Article (PDF Available)* *in* Social Studies of Science <https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0306-3127_Social_Studies_of_Science> 23(1):67-106 · February 1993 *with* 207 Reads DOI: 10.1177/030631293023001003 Cite this publication <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249722214_The_Theatre_of_the_Blind_Starring_a_Promethean_Prankster_a_Phoney_Phenomenon_a_Prism_a_Pocket_and_a_Piece_of_Wood/citation/download> - Malcolm Ashmore <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Ashmore> - 19.27 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Ashmore> - Loughborough Univer <https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Loughborough_University>sity Abstract One of the most notorious cases of full-blown scientific error is the `non-existent' form of radiation known as `N-rays', discovered in the spring of 1903 by the French physicist Blondlot. After a short but full and interesting life, N-rays were killed off (so the story goes) in the autumn of 1904 by the American physicist Wood, who, after visiting Blondlot's laboratory in Nancy, published in Nature a damning report of what he found (or didn't find). In this paper, I look at the way in which these events have been represented in subsequent commentaries (including a later one of Wood's), concentrating particularly on `the tale of the removal of the prism'. I also examine the source of the effectiveness of Wood's `rhetoric of undiscovery' which I claim lies in his construction and operation of a `theatre of the blind', in which only we who were not there can see the nothing that is there. Throughout the text, Wood's credibility as a reporter is questioned in the interest of providing a symmetrically sceptical account of Wood's scientific claims and status, as a counter to the standard story. On Wed., Oct. 23, 2019, 6:24 p.m. bobcook39...@hotmail.com, < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Harry- > > > > I agree if you mean n (neutrino) rays. Neutrons are too easy to identify > at a distance to be missed an/or mysterious.. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:14:23 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7 > > I think the list should include N-rays. > Harry > > On Wed., Oct. 23, 2019, 5:52 p.m. Jones Beene, <jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote: > > This is a light-weight piece for the namephreaks out there (we miss you, > Herb). > > In a patho-sci mashup of LENR with Firesign Theatre ("beat the reaper") > it's about time to settle on a name for that "mystery radiation" which so > charms the alternative energy set. Is it toxic or simply a popular > experiment with old men? > > In the early days of cold fusion (early 1990s) there were dozens of papers > on a mysterious emission in the low keV range which happened merely from > loading H2 or D2 in either nickel or palladium - often with no other input > power. The testing was done using x-ray film, and the positive result is a > foggy film once known as an "autoradiograph". In fact, Uranium decay was > first discovered by Henri Becquerel using the fogging of film as evidence. > His cause of death was unspecified, but he had developed a burn on his > chest from a tiny amount of radium carried in his vest pocket. > > More recently, Holmlid has claimed the mystery radiation appears to be > largely muons - but that seems unlikely despite his continuing efforts at > identification. We need a better name which may help in getting a better > understanding - "nomen est numen" as they say. And don't forget the > toxicity issue - Holmlid has suffered from a malady which is probably > unrelated, but who knows? > > A few of these names on the list refer to real phenomena which are > partially misunderstood... even if most are clearly influenced by an > overactive imagination. LENR has always been a mystery composed of truth > mixed with bogosity. > > We can start the list with an obvious place-marker for the proposition of > deriving fact from fiction - but which is still not understood. Funny how > they all seem different but then bleed over into each other on closer > examination. Who will guess the true identity of symptom 7? > > 1) Neutrinos > 2) Scalar waves, longitudinal waves > 3) Magnetic monopoles > 4) Tachyons, Hawking radiation > 5) ZPE, vacuum energy, aether, EPO field > 6) Dark energy or dark matter > 7) Orgone, ormus, chi, superlight (magnetic light) > 8) Plasmons, polaritons, magnons, spinons, holons, orbitons > 9) Cold electricity, radiant energy > 10) Negative inertial mass, Casimir force > > And the winner is ? > > ... probably the reaper... > > >
