Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
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.
Sure. If you eliminate all the various techniques that are "sensitive"!
Let us not confuse insensitive with inconsistent, or unreliable.
Insensitive techniques will miss seeing low levels of neutrons
altogether. But they will see high levels reliably. And they do. They
definitely detect bursts from time to time, but these bursts are not
correlated with heat or anything else as far as I know. There is no
doubt that bursts of neutrons come and go. Perhaps there is also a
very low level flux that continues consistently, yet it cannot be
easily detected with at BF3 (who knows why) and it is correlated with
heat and other effects. This might be what the CR39 detects. That's a
long string of "perhaps" "maybe" and "ifs."
- Jed
