I agree Peter, however, a house requires a heap of stones to be
assembled before it can be built. We now have a heap of stones and
various architects are trying to design a house using these stones.
Unfortunately, many of the architects ignore most of the stones and
want to use wood instead. We do not yet know what the house will look
like.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
The problem changes when the discovery is understood and its value
"measured"?
The Founders have understood their own discovery better than anybody
else? The previously hidden part of reality is better understood
today then at its discovery?
“Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but
an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones
is a house.” (Henri Poincare)
Hpw does this apply to our field?
Peter
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Not too early, Peter. The problem F-P faced would have existed
whenever the discovery was made because the discovery revealed a new
and perviously hidden part of reality. They paid the price of
forcing everyone to see a new phenomenon. That discovery process
always causes problems for the discoverer no matter when it happens.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
What you say, seems to confirm the idea that CF was discovered many
years too early, before the time when science was prepared to
explain it and technology to develop it and therefore it remained
immature, underdeveloped and underunderstood so many years.
A doctor politicus lady on my Blog has added to this that Cold
Fusion has seriously inteferred with the Cold War ending
discussions (as a competitor for ITER) so
troubles and oppression of CF had many sources
Unluck of historical dimensions.
Peter
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
