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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework, >>>> the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some >>>> screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the >>>> experimental data. >>>> >>> I assume this is about the intense magnetic field. >>> >>> I think this is more more a case where the result does not fit in with >>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. 99.9999% of the time that >>> means the result is some screw-up or another. It is best for an outside >>> observer to ignore such results for the time being. If the researcher has a >>> feeling it might be a genuine anomaly and not a mistake, the researcher >>> should do it again several times, using different instrument types. Then >>> announce it again with more details and better proof. >>> >>> There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge >>> difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is >>> okay. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
