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 >> >> >
