You are letting your common sense distort the true vision of reality. It is difficult to come to a true understanding of what is real using the limited perception of your senses.
The world of the fish is different from the world of the bird. The world of water is different from the world of air. If you only measure the pressure in the air, it will surprise you to read it differently in the water. Each phase of matter: air, water, plasma, solid, is another world that we must understand and adapt to those differences; each a completely new, and unexpected world with its own unique rules. When one views the world as a whole and does not make allowances for the differences between the phases of matter, then confusion abounds. We live in many worlds at the same time, and it is a challenge to perceive them each in the totality of their particular context. People like Mills has made the ‘their is only one world mistake’. But there are at least 500 different phases of matter; each phase lives in its own world with its own rules”. To understand each of those particular worlds, one must study that realm in its own context. When we look at the world of quantum mechanics, our world get more complex and interesting. (Phys.org)—“Forget solid, liquid, and gas: there are in fact more than 500 phases of matter. In a major paper in today's issue of Science, Perimeter Faculty member Xiao-Gang Wen reveals a modern reclassification of all of them. Using modern mathematics, Wen and collaborators reveal a new system which can, at last, successfully classify symmetry-protected phases of matter. Their new classification system will provide insight about these quantum phases of matter, which may in turn increase our ability to design states of matter for use in superconductors or quantum computers. This paper, titled, "Symmetry-Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Systems," is a revealing look at the intricate and fascinating world of quantum entanglement, and an important step toward a modern reclassification of all phases of matter.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-phases-phase.html#jCp The world inside the Ni/H reactor is far different than what we know here in the “real world”. Like an open minded and adaptable intergalactic explorer, in order to make sense of Ni/H reactions, one must study what is happening in that world with reason and imagination. In like manor, the world of the Plasmonics experiments is its own world with its own phases of matter and with its own rules of the road. In another complication, here are some new rules that apply to the nano world of the Ni/H reactor where light and matter can join together to for a new phase of matter Nanostructures for Surface Plasmon enhanced light emission *Mònica Alfonso Larrégola * *September 2008 * http://upcommons.upc.edu/pfc/bitstream/2099.1/6656/1/Diploma%20catal%C3%A0.pdf Mixing up and simplifying all the various worlds that we must live in will lead to hopeless confusion. I think this “there is only one world” outlook is the mistake that Mills has made. Don’t make the same mistake. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, 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 >>> >>> >> > >
