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 > > > Ed imagines reality is a chess game. Harry > 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 >>> >>> >> > >
