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.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 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
