Regarding the question: 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?
>From Nanopasmonic experiments, these hot spots (aka - localized magnetic traps (LMT) )has reached a EMF power density of 10^^15 watts/cm2. This was done with gold. So the Ni/H reactor is not the only plase were EMF concentrations are seen in experiments. Furthermore, the EMF field concentrations in these localized magnetic traps (LMT) will far exceed those achived in gold because. Particle arrogation is used in the Ni/H reactor In Nanoplasmonic experiments, the probes blow out and really high fields cannot be seen. The 5 micron nickel particle takes dipole power production to a huge new level. Therefore, even though it is hard to believe, the huge EMF fields seen in the Ni/H reactors are real. By the way, Rossi has reported lots of excess electrons coming off his reactor. This is an apparent violation of the conservation of charge since he uses only heat to excite the particle zoo. On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 outlined in the ICCF-17 paper no longer applicable/postulated?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. >>> >> >
