At 01:39 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
It makes perfect sense *if* clear nuclear signatures can be obtained
in 100 percent of a given kind of experiment, and the goal is to
prove CF is real to the extent large amounts of funding can be
obtained for pure research.
I see that. Physicists are impressed by neutrons, bless their
hearts. I do not think 100% reproducibility has been achieved in
these experiments, but I do not see any need for it, either.
What was convincing was *consistency* of correlation of excess heat
and helium. In that case, variability of results doesn't matter. I'm
not aware of having seen a long run of experiments being described,
showing similar levels of effects, that's one kind of consistence.
Simply finding neutrons, unless it is consistently the same level,
isn't consistent.
Correlation of effects is very important. If I find, for example,
that the particular kinds of acoustic effects that may be
identifiable are well correlated with the numbers of neutrons found,
bingo. I would have shown that the acoustic effects are a signature
of a nuclear reaction. Without measuring heat at all.
However, at the same time, if I can see local effects of heating,
perhaps light from melting or vaporizing palladium. If I can see how
large these areas are, it's then possible to estimate the energy
density. Which would almost certainly be well into the nuclear range,
I'm not sure that hydrinos, even, could do that .... but who really
knows about hydrinos or other legendary beasts?
You have to show high energy particles or transmutation if you want
to prove nuclear. Nuclear events appear to be the most easily and
cheaply demonstrated.
This experiment does not strike me as easy or cheap. It is valuable
and I suppose it is a relatively clear-cut demonstration. Also,
unlike heat, the tracks remain indefinitely and can be independently
investigated long after the experiment.
"Not easy or cheap?" Well, it has to be easy and it has to be cheap,
or I won't be able to do it. And I'll make it much cheaper for others.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this
thread, which I sense some people have not have addressed or
appreciated, is that a person who cannot generate measurable heat
probably cannot generate neutrons. I could be wrong about that: it
might be a coincidence of history.
It's an accident of history. But without the heat, probably nobody
would have been seriously looking for radiation. And neutrons were
not the most obvious feature of the reactions, in terms of radiation,
rather that honor would go to helium and alpha particles, probably
quite the same thing in this case.
But as I said, with other less sensitive methods of detecting
neutrons I do not think anyone has ever seen neutrons in the
absence of heat, whereas heat without neutrons has often been seen.
So it seems clear to me that heat is the more reliable signal.
Sure. If you eliminate all the various techniques that are "sensitive"!
Jed, neutrons are a detail, actually. The significant radiation is
alpha. Neutrons were interesting, even at an insanely low level,
because they are still well above background, and the triple-tracks
are so clearly diagnostic. However, there are more neutrons than
that, most just leave proton knock-on tracks. And there are orders of
magnitude more alphas, I believe.
But what if I'm wrong, and the alphas were an illusion, the hamburger
syndrome, people hungry for beef imagined it. Suppose the only real
radiation there is proton-knock-on radiation. I can't reject that
hypothesis at this point, at all. It would have major implications.
There are ways to test it.
