I can't let this go. Last year I posted this revealing investigation of how N-rays were "debunked" in an unprofessional, psuedo-scientific manner.
An englishman plays the role of chief debunker. You should read it jones. Harry The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood Social Studies of ScienceFebruary 1993 vol. 23 no. 1 67-106 http://www.gesctm.unal.edu.co/CMS/Docentes/Adjuntos/099037209_20080313_054242_theatre%20of%20the%20blind.pdf Abstract One of the most notorious cases of full-blown scientific error is the `non-existent' form of radiation known as `N-rays', discovered in the spring of 1903 by the French physicist Blondlot. After a short but full and interesting life, N-rays were killed off (so the story goes) in the autumn of 1904 by the American physicist Wood, who, after visiting Blondlot's laboratory in Nancy, published in Nature a damning report of what he found (or didn't find). In this paper, I look at the way in which these events have been represented in subsequent commentaries (including a later one of Wood's), concentrating particularly on `the tale of the removal of the prism'. I also examine the source of the effectiveness of Wood's `rhetoric of undiscovery' which I claim lies in his construction and operation of a `theatre of the blind', in which only we who were not there can see the nothing that is there. Throughout the text, Wood's credibility as a reporter is questioned in the interest of providing a symmetrically sceptical account of Wood's scientific claims and status, as a counter to the standard story. Social Studies of ScienceFebruary 1993 vol. 23 no. 1 67-106 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Curious note from history. > > About 8 years after the discovery of x-rays by a German, we had the > discovery of so-called "n-rays" by a Frenchman. (n was for Nancy). > Curiously, this radiation was said to be generated by polarizing x-rays. > More on that later. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray > > N-rays were said to be a new form of radiation, discovered by a physicist > named Blondlot in 1903, which were confirmed by other Frenchmen - but > subsequently found to be illusory by Germans, and then retracted amid much > embarrassment and national angst. Heck, the French could have saved face > before it went too far, since polarization is a complex phenomenon - but > instead things got out of hand with faked experiments. > > N-rays are often cited as a case of pathological science. Anyone who posits > a new form of radiation should be aware of the pitfall of n-rays, since they > are one of "Randi's" favs. Details here: > > http://www.rexresearch.com/blondlot/nrays.htm > > However ... cough, cough ... few skeptics doubt the Aharonov Bohm effect. > The A-B effect is not precisely in the same category as polarized x-rays, > but there is a bit of overlap since there is a photonic A-B effect. > > In fact, one strange thought that comes to mind in imagining what a "new > form of photon radiation" could consist of, with energy capable of > increasing the decay rate of an isotope like 40K, but not showing up in some > types of detectors ... well ... that would generally fit with a polarized > x-ray, causing a variation of the Aharonov Bohm effect. It helps to > understand the Barker patents on acceleration of nuclear decay. > > Maybe there are n-rays, after all, Nancy. What goes around, comes around ... > as they say. > > ... well, Blondlot might say "Ce qui circule vient autour" > > Jones > > > >
