The description of Cravens reminds me of Muon catalyzed fusion. I have not read up on Craven's work, did it involve Muons?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Axil Axil > One of the most amazing LENR systems of them all is the > Cravens golden ball system. It is so energy weak, relatively cool, small > scale, and gentle that it is hard to imagine its energy is derived from > nuclear processes. > Yes, the NI-Week demo is amazing and under-appreciated, but there is no > evidence that Craven’s device is nuclear. There is plenty of evidence that > nanomagnetism is involved. That could be the important detail – along with > the addition of samarium cobalt to instigate superparamagnetism. > Cravens does believe the effect is nuclear, since it was based on the Les > Case reactor, which Case thought was nuclear. According to Cravens: > (http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf) the golden > ball contains activated carbon, metal alloy, magnetic powder, hydrogen > storage material and deuterium gas. He admits that there are as many ideas > of the exact reaction as there are theorists. > Even among theorists, T-Symmetry is seldom invoked for LENR – but maybe it > should be in the Cravens experiment. There has been no positive test to > confirm helium – and until that happens, everyone is free to speculate. My > opinion is that there is no fusion BUT at the same time, no CoE violation > since there is symmetry breaking. > Although it is a minority view –there are literally hundreds of papers on > intense magnetic fields and symmetry breaking. Since symmetry breaking can > serve to void conservation of energy concerns, the bottom line is that > nuclear reactions may not be required for energy gain if a magnetic field > is > distorting either time or space at the nanoscale – > … so why imagine nuclear fusion when there is no supporting evidence ? > >
