While you are waiting for the authoritative answers from DGT if any, I will
take the liberty to speculate on the answers that seem right to me (at this
juncture).
It is not possible to actually visualize what these subatomic structures
are doing, but by using imagination, some new experimental procedures might
be invented. We can also impose logic to sort things out.
Regarding the question:
1) Magnetic fields (caused by ion migration) trap excited Rydberg state
hydrogen. Therefore the NAE are these localized "trap" zones on the surface
of Ni particles. So is the evolving ("breathing") Ni lattice site NAE
outlined in the ICCF-17 paper no longer applicable/postulated? Or do these
NAE's coexist in your model?
The paper reads like there are two separate mechaisms going on.
The paper states
“For a micro/nano-scale trap of 10 nm diameter containing ~ 3.6 x 104
deuterons, each deuteron or 4He will gain only ~ 0.7 keV kinetic energy, if
the excess kinetic energy of 23.84 MeV is shared equally. This mechanism of
“Bosenova” can provide an explanation for constraints imposed on the
secondary reactions by energetic 4He, as described by Hagelstein [32].”
This is the Ni lattice site NAE outlined in the ICCF-17 paper
In PP 7.2, the localized magnetic traps (LMT) describes an initial
formation stage for the NAE.
I don’t agree with this line of thinking as follows:
The spark produces nanoparticles that condense out of plasma. These
nanoparticles form a aggregate which forms a “Hot Spot” to form. This Hot
Spot produces the .6T magnetic field.
But the nanoparticle aggregate moves to find a 5 micron nickel particle and
land on it. This large particle packs a huge amount of dipole power, and
when the nanoparticle aggregate lands on the nickel micro-particle, a large
amounts of new dipole based energy is transferred to the nano-aggregate.
That is when the magnetic field at 20 cms goes up to 1.6 T. but the
magnetic field is hundreds of T at 1 nanometer.
This huge magnetic field is the active agent in the nuclear reaction.
Nuclear energy is sent to this localized magnetic trap through the
evanescent wave mechanism that connects all these particles together
energetically and a Bosenova occurs.
It might help to think of this magnetic field as a Disruptor Beam as seen
in star trek.
As a point of interest, a picture of the dark mode localized magnetic traps
(LMT) can be found in the Ken Shoulders paper on Figure 5 and 6 on page 4
sited in this vortex post as follows:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg80263.html
Let us discuss this
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:20 PM, JohnMaguire <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:35:34 PM UTC-4, JohnMaguire wrote:
>>
>> Peter, Dr. Hadjichristos,
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for your efforts. Few questions/observations after reading the
>> paper that perhaps you can take a moment to comment on:
>>
>> 1) Magnetic fields (caused by ion migration) trap excited Rydberg state
>> hydrogen. Therefore the NAE are these localized "trap" zones on the surface
>> of Ni particles. So is the evolving ("breathing") Ni lattice site
>> NAE outlined in the ICCF-17 paper no longer applicable/postulated? Or do
>> these NAE's coexist in your model?
>>
>> 2) Were the doubts/objections raised about the Tesla fields (in both this
>> forum and elsewhere) considered before drafting the paper (and therefore
>> double checked), or not considered important and drafted despite them? Have
>> those objections been put to rest as far as you are concerned or is there
>> more measurement work to be done?
>>
>> 3) The absence of gammas now seems to be ascribed to momentum
>> distribution/diffusion throughout the boson cluster. So DGT has abandoned
>> the heavy electron shield hypothesis stated in the ICCF-17 paper?
>>
>> 4) When will the real-time mass spectrometers be up and running? When do
>> you think relevant data will be made available?
>>
>
>
>> 5) Will deuterium and tritium concentrations be sought after at some
>> point soon?
>>
>> 6) Just an observation: Interesting to see you considering the effect of
>> deuterium impurities on the primary reaction. Glad to see investigation
>> into this possibility.
>>
>> Thank you again and all the best.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John M.
>>
>
