Axil,
I suppose that the paper you referenced could be right but their
explanation is so lousy I don't know. I know what a soliton is but a
half soliton sounds like clapping with one hand. It is reminiscent of
string theory.
You are right is saying "Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in
science, LENR is very esoteric." It is unfortunate. At least Mills
tries to explain things in a more visual way. Seems to me that if one
really understands something it can be described in a much more lucid
fashion.
AA
On 4/1/2017 9:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science.
Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very
esoteric.
To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the
Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole
magnetic field.
Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I don't know and
don't have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well
enough to understand if they are right. As far as I know, no one
has ever demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them
as real. The proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's
E-Cat works. In both cases I'd rather wait and see.
AA
On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a
monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field
formatted to support monopole flux lines.
The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic
field (almost a monopole formated magnetic field).
This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.
That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.
To refresh your memory, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg108069.html
<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg108069.html>
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these
smaller particles. They seem to be more a matter of the
individual's belief than pinned down by experiment. Let me
know when someone /proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole.
AA
On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and
the weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic
particles are the effects of how those forces function. The
strong and the weak force produce the pion, muons, and
mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But
these particles are just the effects of what the strong
force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong
force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the
results of this change in behavior.
Professional science states the the fundamental forces of
nature cannot change unless they are affected by the
application of extremes in energy. If enough energy is
present, then the fundamental forces will gradually become
unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.
But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not
behave in this way. As Rossi states, these forces change
when a special type of magnetism is applied to the
fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the
action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But
informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole
magnetic force.
But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having
LENR theory correct in its most basic aspects.
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am not being snarky. I am just stating something
evident. And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi
and I think all is wrong with IH "evidences".
2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
Why be so snarky? You have no clue when Rossi
learnt that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy
evidence does nothing for your credibility.
AA
On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory
knowledge of particle physics. He probably learned
about this when writing his last paper.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
