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
<[email protected]> 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
