On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can
experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come
out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains
strength as long as the condition persists.
This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet
such behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This
condition requires a special set of circumstances to
happen...unusual conditions that are seldom found in everyday life.
OK Axil, let me use a different vocabulary to describe what you
described. You describe a photon as entering a space, i.e. a material,
where is gains energy and is reemitted and detected in the macro
world. What happens in the small space is based on imagination. I can
imagine many ways to explain this process. The different explanations
depend on the conditions. None of the explanations are permitted to
assume mass-energy was created. The extra energy had to come from an
identified source. In other words, the laws of thermodynamics have to
apply no matter how QM is used. That is my point
The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in
which laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of
that particular reality.
I agree. However, the devil is in the details.
When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need
to know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that
govern that game.
I agree. That was my point. Unfortunately, this is not how the game of
science is played when applied to LENR.
Ed Storms
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality
is the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are
trying to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make
up any rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess
without knowing the rules. Reality is not the game itself.
Ed Storms
On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote:
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
