The data come from many places. First, the library LENR experimental data accumulated over the last 25 years in Jed's collection, Next, other data that should be added to Jed's collection, then there is the experimentation done that is directly applicable to LENR which is most recently done but not limited to these selected fields: nano technology, nanoplasmonics, quantum optics, nano optics, quantum mechanics, condensed matter physics, chemistry, solid state physics, the standard modal, Rossi's revelations, DGT published data, and the other developers of LENR+ systems.
For example, To understand what is going on inside a NAE is interesting. To that goal, I am interested in how polaritons can produce a large anaopole magnetic field from a hot spot all the while frequency mixing of incoming EMF frequencies are going on. Let us discuss this reference: Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf Read it and give me your opinion as to its applicability to LENR+ On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and > experimental testing. > > One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows > you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by > economic those experiments may be quite practical. > > What is your experimental test? > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff >> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy. >> >> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by >> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. >> >> In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the >> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the >> references I list. >> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf >> >> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can >> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called >> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple >> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more >>> so than ChemE. >>> >>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical >>> demonstration of that knowledge? >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed >>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not >>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or >>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have >>>>>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the >>>>> suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty >>>>> far-out. >>>>> Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more >>>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out >>>>> by >>>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. >>>>> If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the >>>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is >>>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will >>>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it >>>>> takes >>>>> place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, >>>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the >>>>> recent thread. >>>>> >>>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever >>>>> in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants >>>>> to >>>>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is >>>>> due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in >>>>> mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and >>>>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent >>>>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this >>>>> discussion >>>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been >>>>> a >>>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is >>>>> that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is >>>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses >>>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as >>>>> gammas. >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
