This is an interesting way to look at nature. First you make observations of what is occurring. Then you imagine why this may be so. Finally, you continue to watch the behavior of the experiment and see that all the observations that you collect match your imagined process.
I like to stress the system in well defined ways to encourage it to veer from theory. Most of the education occurs when nature does not quite match your theory. This is where the skeptical physicists are making a mistake by not attempting to understand why the LENR processes do not match their current theories. This is a missed opportunity for them. I suspect that in their cases, all of the observations are erroneous and it would be a waste of their time to prove that this is the so. What will it take to get their attention if it has not bee possible up to the present considering all of the supporting evidence? Dave -----Original Message----- From: H Veeder <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent In order to learn the rules, you first have to take a risk and imagine what the rules might be and this might mean imagining new rules that conflict with established rules. Imagination is not undermining the search for an explanation. Dogma about this or that rule is undermining the search for an explanation. Harry 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
