*I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the sensors blew out. Not finding this behavior is a result of not looking in the proper text book. If you want to understand LENR, you need to understand nanoplasmonics. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework, >> the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some >> screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the >> experimental data. >> > I assume this is about the intense magnetic field. > > I think this is more more a case where the result does not fit in with > conventional, textbook physics and engineering. 99.9999% of the time that > means the result is some screw-up or another. It is best for an outside > observer to ignore such results for the time being. If the researcher has a > feeling it might be a genuine anomaly and not a mistake, the researcher > should do it again several times, using different instrument types. Then > announce it again with more details and better proof. > > There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge > difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is > okay. > > - Jed > >
