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
<[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
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
