Jones: Jed, Ruby etal.-- Jones, as you point out the left out details are more important than what's presented in a paper.
My experience is that this happens often in Science. In nuclear reactor design and operation as regulated by the NRC, leaving out information or knowledge from safety presentations and design considerations is a felony. Not so for current science research. Someone should FOIA the NRL for all reviews, reports, documents, comments (information) regarding the Chubb and Letts theory and experiments. This should include all the agendas for reviews of Chubb/letts work and the reviewer names and dates of the reviews. The logs of all Chubb NRL document titles, dates and classification should also be requested via FOIA. The assignment of document numbers in log books (which are generally unclassified) is an excellent source of information to more fully understand what exists in the NRL files. A law suit may be required to get the Navy to abide by FOIA. However, there is nothing pre-decisional about document log books that should hold up the release process. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier From: David Roberson We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? In IE, issue 95, there is a provocative article by Chubb and Letts. "Magnetic Field Triggering of Excess Power." They are framing a theory - "IBST" - based on ion band states, which is beyond my pay scale to comprehend. And there is a lot of other interesting stuff in the article as well, but what is curious the what they glossed over. If you look at fig. 9 on page 43, they get this fantastic spike in power by changing the magnetic field orientation wrt cathode with H20. But they make a point that this has no lasting effect (beyond the 20-30 second spike). This is maddening. Why not pulse the field a very low duty so as to maintain the massive 10x gain over time?... and we have to think this obvious tactic was pursued but the result is not given; and it all goes to show how overlooked the entire issue of applied magnetic field has been with almost everyone except Letts and Cravens. Jones
