Horace Heffner wrote:
It makes perfect sense *if* clear nuclear signatures can be obtained in 100 percent of a given kind of experiment, and the goal is to prove CF is real to the extent large amounts of funding can be obtained for pure research.
I see that. Physicists are impressed by neutrons, bless their hearts. I do not think 100% reproducibility has been achieved in these experiments, but I do not see any need for it, either.
You have to show high energy particles or transmutation if you want to prove nuclear. Nuclear events appear to be the most easily and cheaply demonstrated.
This experiment does not strike me as easy or cheap. It is valuable and I suppose it is a relatively clear-cut demonstration. Also, unlike heat, the tracks remain indefinitely and can be independently investigated long after the experiment.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this thread, which I sense some people have not have addressed or appreciated, is that a person who cannot generate measurable heat probably cannot generate neutrons. I could be wrong about that: it might be a coincidence of history. But as I said, with other less sensitive methods of detecting neutrons I do not think anyone has ever seen neutrons in the absence of heat, whereas heat without neutrons has often been seen. So it seems clear to me that heat is the more reliable signal.
- Jed
