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
