Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
For what we know , Rossi's device is anisotropic , excited by incoherent heat, while Defkalion reactor is oriented by the plasma flux... Some says the plasma/current is flowing through the material. This may justify stable oriented field on one side (defkalion) ,and unstable (messy transient spin domain coherence/decoherence) magnetic field causing RF (rossi). as said Jed we don't have enough data, and even less checked data. Unlike some serious people , I support chatting , but as conditional chatting... I agree that there are unknow probability of 1.6tesla being an artifact or a misunderstanding... I just notice it is about the maximum field of rare-earth permanent magnets. huge, but not alien. LENR according to some is linked with superconduction, nanomagnetism... beside that; I noticed some thing that I don't understand well, and may raise some bell et trigger checking. Biberian worked on some material which were proton conductors. It seems that Defkalion oxides beside nickel are also proton conductor... (I let serious people check and interpret). is proton conductor just meaning that hydrogen flow inside, that wave of protons displacement propagate like wave of electrons displacement in metal ? 2013/8/14 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Yeah. Phone systems are usually robust. I have heard of them being disrupted by RF but not a magnetic field. Then again who knows what a 1.6 T magnetic field would do? (Assuming it is real.) I think Ed's main point is that you should not assume there is no instrument artifact when the signs point to one: 1. The result is highly unexpected. 2. It appears to violate textbook physics. 3. There has to be strong RF noise, and that is known to cause instrument artifacts. That is not proof the result is wrong, but it should give you pause. It is fine for Axil to be encouraged by this result because it may support the nanoplasmonics theory. This particular evidence is important to him. He should pay close attention to it. But he should be prepared to accept it is wrong, should additional evidence emerge. Defkalion has not been good at supplying additional information or clarifying this sort of thing. They have left many loose ends loose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
However I think it is more important that DGT has cut some Gordian Knots Peter On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Yeah. Phone systems are usually robust. I have heard of them being disrupted by RF but not a magnetic field. Then again who knows what a 1.6 T magnetic field would do? (Assuming it is real.) I think Ed's main point is that you should not assume there is no instrument artifact when the signs point to one: 1. The result is highly unexpected. 2. It appears to violate textbook physics. 3. There has to be strong RF noise, and that is known to cause instrument artifacts. That is not proof the result is wrong, but it should give you pause. It is fine for Axil to be encouraged by this result because it may support the nanoplasmonics theory. This particular evidence is important to him. He should pay close attention to it. But he should be prepared to accept it is wrong, should additional evidence emerge. Defkalion has not been good at supplying additional information or clarifying this sort of thing. They have left many loose ends loose. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
It certainly would be helpful if DGT supplied supporting evidence of the very large magnetic field. I agree with Jed that it might be premature to jump to conclusions as to the reality of the field, but I also believe that it does little harm for theoretical concepts to be suggested that depend upon this field as supporting evidence. At this point in time we do not know whether or not the field exists, and it might be some time before DGT verifies its existence. Unless DGT is making an attempt to misdirect our thoughts, then they should be capable of determining the effects of RF interference within their instrumentation. It existence is generally obvious in most cases since just waving your hand around the instrument face or body results in wildly different readings. It is easy to spot these interference effects, but shielding them out effectively is not so easy. If a large magnetic field is indeed present, then an important clue is uncovered. Rossi suggested something similar on his blog, so that should be taken into consideration as well. I tend to seek out positive feedback interactions when attempting to explain effects that seem to appear out of nowhere. These positive feedback type systems have a characteristic behavior. On many occasions there is a threshold below which nothing is seen. Once the threshold is breached the effect appears to rise out of the local noise exponentially with time. The end result is much like what we see with LENR systems. The various pieces of the puzzle are first assembled correctly and then the trigger is applied. This appears to be direct thermal input in the case of Rossi and a plasma associated trigger for DGT. If a large unexpected magnetic field happens to be one component of the positive feedback loop, then it will rise rapidly once initiated and interact with the other parts of the mechanism. Perhaps a magnetic field allows additional LENR sites to generate energy, a portion of which adds to the local magnetic field energy. This process can theoretically feed upon itself until some limiting action occurs within the material. In this case, that might be the depletion of available LENR sites. It is not difficult to imagine that reaction components continually collect in each tiny local region but the net positive feedback loop gain remains less than unity until the proper density is achieved for example. There is one especially interesting physical effect that depends upon a magnetic field which might offer a clue. Many materials that are magnetic exhibit magnetostriction when subject to a field. This is a well known phenomenon and results in the mechanical distortion of the metal and large internal stresses. There are claims that some LENR systems respond to mechanical drive due to shock and this might be an extension of that observation. Even though I find it difficult to initially accept the large claimed magnetic field according to DGT, that is no reason to discard the idea at this point in time. Perhaps DGT will add supporting evidence to their statement and we will know how seriously we should take their input. To totally disregard the possibility of the field would be closing many doors. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 11:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims. Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Yeah. Phone systems are usually robust. I have heard of them being disrupted by RF but not a magnetic field. Then again who knows what a 1.6 T magnetic field would do? (Assuming it is real.) I think Ed's main point is that you should not assume there is no instrument artifact when the signs point to one: 1. The result is highly unexpected. 2. It appears to violate textbook physics. 3. There has to be strong RF noise, and that is known to cause instrument artifacts. That is not proof the result is wrong, but it should give you pause. It is fine for Axil to be encouraged by this result because it may support the nanoplasmonics theory. This particular evidence is important to him. He should pay close attention to it. But he should be prepared to accept it is wrong, should additional evidence emerge. Defkalion has not been good at supplying additional information or clarifying this sort of thing. They have left many loose ends loose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
One way to exactly characterize the magnetic fields in the Ni/H reactor is to use neutron scattering as a probe of the magnetic field. The neutrons (a polarized mono-energetic neutron beam) will be unaffected by everything, for example electric charge or plasma reactions but will be affected by the magnetic field in the Ni/H reactor since the neutron has a spin component. The amount of deflection that the neutron beam suffers will tell what the exact nature and strength of the magnetic field really is. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It certainly would be helpful if DGT supplied supporting evidence of the very large magnetic field. I agree with Jed that it might be premature to jump to conclusions as to the reality of the field, but I also believe that it does little harm for theoretical concepts to be suggested that depend upon this field as supporting evidence. At this point in time we do not know whether or not the field exists, and it might be some time before DGT verifies its existence. Unless DGT is making an attempt to misdirect our thoughts, then they should be capable of determining the effects of RF interference within their instrumentation. It existence is generally obvious in most cases since just waving your hand around the instrument face or body results in wildly different readings. It is easy to spot these interference effects, but shielding them out effectively is not so easy. If a large magnetic field is indeed present, then an important clue is uncovered. Rossi suggested something similar on his blog, so that should be taken into consideration as well. I tend to seek out positive feedback interactions when attempting to explain effects that seem to appear out of nowhere. These positive feedback type systems have a characteristic behavior. On many occasions there is a threshold below which nothing is seen. Once the threshold is breached the effect appears to rise out of the local noise exponentially with time. The end result is much like what we see with LENR systems. The various pieces of the puzzle are first assembled correctly and then the trigger is applied. This appears to be direct thermal input in the case of Rossi and a plasma associated trigger for DGT. If a large unexpected magnetic field happens to be one component of the positive feedback loop, then it will rise rapidly once initiated and interact with the other parts of the mechanism. Perhaps a magnetic field allows additional LENR sites to generate energy, a portion of which adds to the local magnetic field energy. This process can theoretically feed upon itself until some limiting action occurs within the material. In this case, that might be the depletion of available LENR sites. It is not difficult to imagine that reaction components continually collect in each tiny local region but the net positive feedback loop gain remains less than unity until the proper density is achieved for example. There is one especially interesting physical effect that depends upon a magnetic field which might offer a clue. Many materials that are magnetic exhibit magnetostriction when subject to a field. This is a well known phenomenon and results in the mechanical distortion of the metal and large internal stresses. There are claims that some LENR systems respond to mechanical drive due to shock and this might be an extension of that observation. Even though I find it difficult to initially accept the large claimed magnetic field according to DGT, that is no reason to discard the idea at this point in time. Perhaps DGT will add supporting evidence to their statement and we will know how seriously we should take their input. To totally disregard the possibility of the field would be closing many doors. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 11:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims. Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Yeah. Phone systems are usually robust. I have heard of them being disrupted by RF but not a magnetic field. Then again who knows what a 1.6 T magnetic field would do? (Assuming it is real.) I think Ed's main point is that you should not assume there is no instrument artifact when the signs point to one: 1. The result is highly unexpected. 2. It appears to violate textbook physics. 3. There has to be strong RF noise, and that is known to cause instrument artifacts. That is not proof the result is wrong, but it should give you pause. It is fine for Axil
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: However I think it is more important that DGT has cut some Gordian Knots They are Greek, after all. I think overall they tied as many new knots as they cut. It was a good first step but people have many questions about it, including people who are Friends Of Cold Fusion with no ax to grind. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
To remain at the Greeks, this magnetic field story is interpreted as an Achilles' Heel of the story - it is NOT! and 20 times more words were used for this than for the fact that the Hyperion generates controllable copious heat. Peter On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: However I think it is more important that DGT has cut some Gordian Knots They are Greek, after all. I think overall they tied as many new knots as they cut. It was a good first step but people have many questions about it, including people who are Friends Of Cold Fusion with no ax to grind. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: To remain at the Greeks, this magnetic field story is interpreted as an Achilles' Heel of the story - it is NOT! and 20 times more words were used for this than for the fact that the Hyperion generates controllable copious heat. All functioning cold fusion reactors produce heat. There is nothing remarkable about that, so we made no remarks. Rossi's reactors produce copious heat, and it looks pretty much under control. I suppose Defkalion learned many of their techniques from him. (A court will probably have to decide how many, someday.) I do not think they have proved it is fully controllable. I did not see them modulate the reaction or turn it on and off repeatedly. Many conventional energy sources are not fully controllable. Burning coal or wood cannot be turned off. You have to let it burn out. Coal and gas fired generator plants explode from time to time. Portable computer batteries sometimes catch on fire, as did the ones on the Boeing Dreamliner. Fission reactors such as the ones at Fukushima cannot be fully turned off quickly, and they can go badly out of control even after at SCRAM, as we have seen. So, even if cold fusion is not fully controllable, it may still have have practical applications. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
just a very general remark.. LENR is a strange domain which challenge our knowledge in cognition, psychology... I discovered much about sociology of science, media, science journals, free energy fans, ufoists, hot fusion physicist, entrepreneurs, green entrepreneurs... and what happen now, is even more fascinating than the denial of rock-hard evidence by mainstream science... I don't know what to think, but sure it is fascination, like Spock would say. It challenge my memory because what I read don't match what I have read, seen an heard... I feel a red-pill or blue-pill moment. 2013/8/14 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To remain at the Greeks, this magnetic field story is interpreted as an Achilles' Heel of the story - it is NOT! and 20 times more words were used for this than for the fact that the Hyperion generates controllable copious heat. Peter On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: However I think it is more important that DGT has cut some Gordian Knots They are Greek, after all. I think overall they tied as many new knots as they cut. It was a good first step but people have many questions about it, including people who are Friends Of Cold Fusion with no ax to grind. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
I suppose Defkalion learned many of their techniques from him. (A court will probably have to decide how many, someday.) There are any unsupported assumptions in your post. Therefore it is a poor one. Defkalion learned many of their techniques from open source documents as they has previously stated. Their one advantage is that they have an open mind not clouded by illusions as many seem to have here. Rossi had a big mouth and yes, it was not hard to derive many reactor principles from his public ramblings. If most people were not so blinded by illusion, they can go through the public record and do the same thing that DGT has done. What Defkalion has a talent for is knowing what material is valuable and what material is garbage. That talent is a rare gift, a gift that you may be sorely lacking in. Yes, Defkalion has many talented contributors and their accomplishments must not be undercut with unfounded slanders. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: just a very general remark.. LENR is a strange domain which challenge our knowledge in cognition, psychology... I discovered much about sociology of science, media, science journals, free energy fans, ufoists, hot fusion physicist, entrepreneurs, green entrepreneurs... and what happen now, is even more fascinating than the denial of rock-hard evidence by mainstream science... I don't know what to think, but sure it is fascination, like Spock would say. It challenge my memory because what I read don't match what I have read, seen an heard... I feel a red-pill or blue-pill moment. 2013/8/14 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To remain at the Greeks, this magnetic field story is interpreted as an Achilles' Heel of the story - it is NOT! and 20 times more words were used for this than for the fact that the Hyperion generates controllable copious heat. Peter On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: However I think it is more important that DGT has cut some Gordian Knots They are Greek, after all. I think overall they tied as many new knots as they cut. It was a good first step but people have many questions about it, including people who are Friends Of Cold Fusion with no ax to grind. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
I do not think they have proved it is fully controllable. I did not see them modulate the reaction or turn it on and off repeatedly. You should go back an review the ICCF-18 Delkalion demo again. Control of the reactor was a major demo objective that was successfully accomplished. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: To remain at the Greeks, this magnetic field story is interpreted as an Achilles' Heel of the story - it is NOT! and 20 times more words were used for this than for the fact that the Hyperion generates controllable copious heat. All functioning cold fusion reactors produce heat. There is nothing remarkable about that, so we made no remarks. Rossi's reactors produce copious heat, and it looks pretty much under control. I suppose Defkalion learned many of their techniques from him. (A court will probably have to decide how many, someday.) I do not think they have proved it is fully controllable. I did not see them modulate the reaction or turn it on and off repeatedly. Many conventional energy sources are not fully controllable. Burning coal or wood cannot be turned off. You have to let it burn out. Coal and gas fired generator plants explode from time to time. Portable computer batteries sometimes catch on fire, as did the ones on the Boeing Dreamliner. Fission reactors such as the ones at Fukushima cannot be fully turned off quickly, and they can go badly out of control even after at SCRAM, as we have seen. So, even if cold fusion is not fully controllable, it may still have have practical applications. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I do not think they have proved it is fully controllable. I did not see them modulate the reaction or turn it on and off repeatedly. You should go back an review the ICCF-18 Delkalion demo again. Control of the reactor was a major demo objective that was successfully accomplished. Yes, I realize that. You should look at the curves shown on the screen. That did not look like pinpoint control to me. If my car accelerator pedal worked like that, I would probably run into a tree. As I said, this does not mean the reaction is useless. For one thing, there is no need to turn off a cold fusion reactor. You can put it in standby mode. It continues to consume fuel but that does not matter. I doubt that a cold fusion automobile engine will ever be fully turned off -- except, perhaps, after you run into a tree and rupture the reactor vessel. If the reactor does not respond with pinpoint control, the car will have to be an electric hybrid, rather than direct drive was steam turbines powered by cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:01:13 PM I do not think they have proved it is fully controllable. I did not see them modulate the reaction or turn it on and off repeatedly. You should go back an review the ICCF-18 Delkalion demo again. Control of the reactor was a major demo objective that was successfully accomplished. Yes, I realize that. You should look at the curves shown on the screen. That did not look like pinpoint control to me. If my car accelerator pedal worked like that, I would probably run into a tree. Hadjichristos (sp) specifically said in the demo that they were keeping the modulation of the HV pulse fixed, to avoid complicating the test -- and they usually used this for fine control. (Duty cycle?)
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Hadjichristos (sp) specifically said in the demo that they were keeping the modulation of the HV pulse fixed, to avoid complicating the test -- and they usually used this for fine control. (Duty cycle?) Ah. I missed that, or I forgot it. In that case maybe they do have fine control. The control they demonstrated was impressive compared to other cold fusion devices. As I said, it was good enough from some practical applications. Maybe not a thermoelectric pacemaker. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
The heat can be used produce to steam which can turn an armature in the presence of the magnetic. From the point of view of the rotating armature the magnetic flux will vary so a electric current can be generated Harry On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: People keep saying EMF in the context of talking about a magnetic field. Aside from the difference being generally crucial, the energy in a magnetic field is unavailable if it is unchanging.
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
This is the link for the original post. Comments are welcome! http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/584 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Hi folks! One more comment from Abd. You are welcome to go there and comment!: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/593 There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85652.html There continues to be a high level of assumption involved in comments, with little awareness of how weak the assumptions are. Dr. Storms commented: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85663.html Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. and later, to Daniel Rocha: Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? Daniel Rocha does appear to have inside information, but is restricted in what he can reveal. Unfortunately, he may also be adding his own intepretations, confusing everything. You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you know this is not true, why would you not say so? I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was measured as peak. This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain. The time out refers to requests from Defkalion to allow time for a coherent response to questions; in particular, Hadjichristos is on vacation, suffering mightily from the restrictions of being on a Greek beach with his family. We feel his pain. We would join him if we could, to share his difficulties. Contact me for information as to how to provide me with transportation. and later: Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances. Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory. Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss. I agree with Dr. Storms that some people are diving headlong into theoretical explanations of some poorly-reported phenomenon, far in advance of any necessity, with a high likelihood that it's all some mistake, or, more likely, that something is happening, all right, but the information reported is, at this point, misleading. But Ed himself goes into speculation, in a primitive way (as did I, with my theory that Gauss were being reported as Tesla. That has become unlikely.) Finally (?), Ed wrote, at http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85723.html Eric, you need to consider what a magnetic field really is when it is measured in space 20 cm from an object in which the field is generated. Such fields either result from a very large DC current or a very efficient alignment of magnetic domains in the material. The alignment must be accomplished by an applied DC current because otherwise the domains would have random alignment no matter how intense the local magnetic field might be. The only current passing through the device is claimed to produce a plasma inside the metal container and the plasma is being generated by an AC current. Even if a DC current were used, the field could not exceed the known magnetic effect of the rather modest current. In short, the claim, if true, is even more amazing than is the CF effect itself because it violates basic understanding of magnetic behavior. A more logical explanation is that the gauss meter and the other instruments nearby were responding to the effect of RF emission obtained from a Maser effect produced in the cavity. Since we know nothing useful about the observation, any attempt at an explanation is useless and only makes the effort look stupid. It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a gaussmeter. Using a peak measurement would be
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
*Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances. Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory. Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss.* I* agree with Dr. Storms that some people are diving headlong into theoretical explanations of some poorly-reported phenomenon, far in advance of any necessity, with a high likelihood that it's all some mistake, or, more likely, that something is happening, all right, but the information reported is, at this point, misleading. But Ed himself goes into speculation, in a primitive way (as did I, with my theory that Gauss were being reported as Tesla. That has become unlikely.)* 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. The application of Nanoplasmonic theory to the Ni/H reactor is well documented in a paper that I authored and distributed to selected LENR experts many months ago. This Paper was a coherent compilation of the many posts that I have written on vortex. These posts usually receive no feedback or comment. To account for this lack of response, my assumption is that Nanoplasmonic science is way over the heads of most laymen or even non-electrochemists. However to my pleasant surprise, ABD was one of the reviewers and commented on it extensively. However unlike DGT, ABD has not taken these concepts to heart and embraced Nanoplasmonics as the causal root of the LENR process. I have repeatedly begged the Vortex community to learn and understand Nanoplasmonics, a electrochemical based science that has developed since 1974 when Martin Fleischmann founded it. This new science has made steady progress over the following decades and now produces and excess of 2000 papers a year as its intellectual product. The EMF behavior of the Ni/H reactor is exactly predicted by Nanoplasmonic technology. The central physical manifestation of Nanoplasmonics is the “hot spot”. This is directly related to the nuclear active environment that is oftentimes discussed as a central LENR mechanism. You would think that the revelation by both Rossi and DGT of EMF anomalies in the Ni/H reactor might engender increased interest in Nanoplasmonics as a successful predictor of Ni/H behavior. But it has not. This leaded me to the conclusion that the problem with LENR is deeply rooted in the people who support it. If you take offence at that conclusion, learn some Nanoplasmonics and prove me wrong. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Hi folks! One more comment from Abd. You are welcome to go there and comment!: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/593 There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85652.html There continues to be a high level of assumption involved in comments, with little awareness of how weak the assumptions are. Dr. Storms commented: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85663.html Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. and later, to Daniel Rocha: Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? Daniel Rocha does appear to have inside information, but is restricted in what he can reveal. Unfortunately, he may also be adding his own intepretations, confusing everything. You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you know this is not true, why would you not say so? I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was measured as peak. This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as a peak measurement, but it does become a little
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Daniel, Is it worth considering the possibility that superoscillations or rogue waves are occurring? It's possible to generate extremely large transient signal peaks and steep slopes, using band-limited signals - even when all of the components are low-frequency, low-amplitude sinusoids. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superoscillation) BTW, the Energetics' SuperWave stimulus looks to me like it's guaranteed to produce such excursions. -- Lou Pagnucco Daniel Rocha wrote: There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck. [...] I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was measured as peak. This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain. [...] It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a gaussmeter. Using a peak measurement would be highly vulnerable to this. A DC or RMS AC display would be less vulnerable, but major RF noise could scramble almost any electronic device unless it is specially designed to be immune. For pulsed DC, and assuming Defkalion is using the same stimulation still -- and apparently the Tesla figures were from last year or even before -- see slide 15, http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos [...]
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
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.% 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
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Super oscillations are produced when fano resonance converts infrared EMF into a soliton EMF singularity within the hot spot that develops between the nanowires of the Nickel micro particles. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Daniel, Is it worth considering the possibility that superoscillations or rogue waves are occurring? It's possible to generate extremely large transient signal peaks and steep slopes, using band-limited signals - even when all of the components are low-frequency, low-amplitude sinusoids. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superoscillation) BTW, the Energetics' SuperWave stimulus looks to me like it's guaranteed to produce such excursions. -- Lou Pagnucco Daniel Rocha wrote: There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck. [...] I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was measured as peak. This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain. [...] It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a gaussmeter. Using a peak measurement would be highly vulnerable to this. A DC or RMS AC display would be less vulnerable, but major RF noise could scramble almost any electronic device unless it is specially designed to be immune. For pulsed DC, and assuming Defkalion is using the same stimulation still -- and apparently the Tesla figures were from last year or even before -- see slide 15, http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos [...]
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
*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.% 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
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is okay. Ignoring the results until you assimilate enough applicable knowledge to understand it. But how long does it take for the observer to understand what needs to be done to get up to the proper speed. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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.comwrote: 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.% 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
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
In Kim's ICCF 18 paper. there are two references to nanoplasmonic papers [16,17]. Also, DGT has be famisly quoted as stating that LENR should stand for nanoplasmonics: see http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf However, readers who are aware of nanoplasmonics—a new area of science dealing with the interaction of photons with matter including nuclei or sub-nuclear particles—will be interested to read how scientists at the Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT) lab now describe phenomena that they see happening in DGT’s excess-heat-producing Hyperion product. Instead of using the term low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), DGT has been calling the process HENI—heat energy from nuclear interactions. A recent breakthrough resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear, it now stands for nanoplasmonics. I expect that this simpler interpretation of the phenomena could help with the public image of this field and its products. Could it also build alliances with other academic fields On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is okay. Ignoring the results until you assimilate enough applicable knowledge to understand it. But how long does it take for the observer to understand what needs to be done to get up to the proper speed. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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.comwrote: 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.% 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
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A recent breakthrough resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear, it now stands for nanoplasmonics. It stands for 'nuclei'. http://defkalion-energy.com/technology/
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Axil, To boil it down, if you say it is a singularity emitting emf radiation over a broad spectrum I agree with that synopsis On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with conventional, textbook physics and e*
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/on-rossis-fascinating-emf-discovery Andrea Rossi recently stated on his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics that he is currently taking the road to circumventing the Carnot Cycle. The Italian inventor posted that direct EMF from the reactor core. EMF or Electromotive Force, according to Faraday’s Law, represents energy per unit charge (voltage) which has been made available by the generating mechanism and is not a ‘force’. Rossi said: “Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point, also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle.” Daniel G. Zavela, another poster on JONP website, commented that his electrical engineer friend found Rossi’s EMF discovery fascinating. Zavela further stated that his friend has a few questions for Rossi if his research has found the answers yet. Here are the three questions and the corresponding answers from Rossi: Q: If this is not a temperature-dependent phenomenon, why wasn’t it detected earlier? (it is quite unexpected, so perhaps no one was looking for it, and the recent discovery was merely a fortunate accident, as often happens in Science). A: Matter of Serendipity Q: What is the strength of the EMF? Milligauss? Dozens of Gauss? That makes a difference in (a) whether it might be due to something else going on in the lab, or from the reactor core itself, and (b) whether there is enough energy in the EMF to provide useful levels of output power. A: I prefer not to give precise data until we have not understood well the “strange power” Q. What is the internal physical arrangement of the nickel and other elements in the eCat? I ask this, because I speculate that if there is some kind of circular layout, it is conceivable that some subatomic effect has set up a circular electron flow that would produce an EMF. A: Confidential For more than a year now since Rossi announced that he has a working cold fusion/LENR based device, there have been several speculations and quite a few of creative inventions. People get easily excited. However, it is still good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team and provide us significant information with evidence. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science which can start your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton. But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *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. Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges. There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An evaluation should not be all or nothing. You can accept some claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence. A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Unless we understand the meaning of the words being used, nothing will make sense. To make electric power, a voltage has to be created between two locations so that a current can be made to flow. The amount of power created is equal to the current times the voltage. Many ways exist to create a voltage. For example, a thermocouple creates a voltage but very little power. For the claim to be important, Rossi needs to show that the configuration actually creates a voltage AND a current. This can be done using a thermoelectric convertor, which are easily available. However, the efficiency is too low for this method to be useful under most circumstances. Until the actual data is provided, the claim means only that Rossi is attempting to cause direct conversion, which is a well known process. This claim does not show anything about the theory of CF. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil wrote: http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/on-rossis-fascinating-emf-discovery Andrea Rossi recently stated on his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics that he is currently taking the road to circumventing the Carnot Cycle. The Italian inventor posted that direct EMF from the reactor core. EMF or Electromotive Force, according to Faraday’s Law, represents energy per unit charge (voltage) which has been made available by the generating mechanism and is not a ‘force’. Rossi said: “Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point, also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle.” Daniel G. Zavela, another poster on JONP website, commented that his electrical engineer friend found Rossi’s EMF discovery fascinating. Zavela further stated that his friend has a few questions for Rossi if his research has found the answers yet. Here are the three questions and the corresponding answers from Rossi: Q: If this is not a temperature-dependent phenomenon, why wasn’t it detected earlier? (it is quite unexpected, so perhaps no one was looking for it, and the recent discovery was merely a fortunate accident, as often happens in Science). A: Matter of Serendipity Q: What is the strength of the EMF? Milligauss? Dozens of Gauss? That makes a difference in (a) whether it might be due to something else going on in the lab, or from the reactor core itself, and (b) whether there is enough energy in the EMF to provide useful levels of output power. A: I prefer not to give precise data until we have not understood well the “strange power” Q. What is the internal physical arrangement of the nickel and other elements in the eCat? I ask this, because I speculate that if there is some kind of circular layout, it is conceivable that some subatomic effect has set up a circular electron flow that would produce an EMF. A: Confidential For more than a year now since Rossi announced that he has a working cold fusion/LENR based device, there have been several speculations and quite a few of creative inventions. People get easily excited. However, it is still good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team and provide us significant information with evidence. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I have listened to your range of theories. You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year ago. I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M theory while we are throwing out suggestions But I will read up on nanoplasmonics. Thanks, Stewart On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science which can start your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the solit
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
People keep saying EMF in the context of talking about a magnetic field. Aside from the difference being generally crucial, the energy in a magnetic field is unavailable if it is unchanging. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I have listened to your range of theories. You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year ago. I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M theory while we are throwing out suggestions But I will read up on nanoplasmonics. Thanks, Stewart On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science which can start your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the solit
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
For any polariton based soliton, it exists for some 10s of picoseconds only. It seems to me that this is a rapidly changing magnetic field. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: People keep saying EMF in the context of talking about a magnetic field. Aside from the difference being generally crucial, the energy in a magnetic field is unavailable if it is unchanging. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I have listened to your range of theories. You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year ago. I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M theory while we are throwing out suggestions But I will read up on nanoplasmonics. Thanks, Stewart On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science which can start your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their SCADA function. Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated. Ed The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't want to believe it, that is. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. Ed On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me. If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton production. It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed? Ed What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the nucleus. Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the solit
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Somewhere in a previous post I saw DGT's spark pulse numbers of 24 kV at 22 mA peak with a rep rate in the kHz range. This is over 500W of pulse power. The wires leading to the spark plugs are of significant size and will make good radiators. Normal CDI type of spark pulsers have nanosecond rise times. The result is that the Hyperion is likely an RF noise screamer. Even if there was no external field associated with the LENR per se, the noise from this pulse generator could easily desense phones and other surrounding equipment. It is like running a tesla coil in the same room where you are trying to make sensitive measurements. The RF gets picked up by in the instruments, goes all over the the internal PC boards, and gets rectified (like a crystal radio) in every transistor junction on the board. High gain circuits will go completely wacky with the little internal offsets created this way. Until you see how well this noise is suppressed in the instruments, you can't believe any of the measurements. DGT's shielding has surely been intended to suppress this interference, but it is a difficult task to provide the broadband shielding required. A high frequency spectrum analyzer is needed to evaluate the level and frequency extent of the possible RF interference. I cannot imagine trying to make 24b ADC measurements for accurate thermocouple readings in the presence of these pulses. Bob
Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: A high frequency spectrum analyzer is needed to evaluate the level and frequency extent of the possible RF interference. I cannot imagine trying to make 24b ADC measurements for accurate thermocouple readings in the presence of these pulses. And THAT is why you should always bring a $7 red liquid general purpose thermometer. See: http://www.omega.com/pptst/GT-736000_THERMOMETERS.html Fancy high tech equipment is wonderful. I love it! I had a great time at U. Missouri looking at all those instruments. HOWEVER, you must do a reality check. Measure the temperature with a thermometer. Measure the flow rate with a stopwatch, a bucket, and a weight scale. (In this case you have to condense the steam.) - Jed
