I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL
nuclear reactions make heat. F-P and many people since 1989 see
evidence for a nuclear reaction. That fact alone should have excited
scientists. However, we all were taught that a nuclear reaction is
not influenced by the chemical environment in which it occurs. Even
evidence for changes in decay rate or evidence for hot fusion taking
place at greater rate in a chemical environment is rejected or
ignored. F-P were forcing a basic concept be changed. Their effort
revealed who in science has the ability to think in a creative way, in
contrast to who will follow what they are taught no matter what they
experience. Unfortunately, the system rewards the less creative.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree with Ed that they were brave to believe their own
calorimetry, given the deficit of neutrons. Martin later said, "it
is the easiest thing in the world to dismiss your own results; to
say 'that must be a mistake' and to ignore it."
The excess heat is a subtle detail that someone unwilling to really
look into the matter is not going to get, and it's one that some
people can somehow go for years not paying attention to. Neutrons
and gammas, etc., by contrast, are nice and flashy and would have
made cold fusion easier for nearly anyone to understand. Fleischmann
and Pons were stubborn in just the right way to not yield on the
point about excess heat. Having this one thing to hold onto did not
make the going easy after their announcement.
Eric
