http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=6000#p102568
Actual pictures of this photon process is included in this explanatory post. The theory of Ni/H type LENR that I support is based on 100% valid experimentally based nanoplasmonic science. It could well be different but o don't care, I leave explaining Pd/D lenr to others as it will never be productive...just my opinion. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
