but from my perspective, you always seem to think there is only "one way" of perceiving/interpreting the evidence.
Most LENR theories are based on emergent LENR phenomena that exist far above the primary causation. The Root cause of LENR is a single all encompassing mechanism. The many cause interpretation that you prefer is counterproductive to finding the beating heart at the center of LENR. Only one center is possible and its discovery is the only correct road to understanding LENR. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > I know Ken Shoulders' work Axil. In fact, I've devoted a small section to > Ken over at blue-science (amongst many other relevant people from the OU > world I've investigated/archived): > http://www.blue-science.org/articles/suggested-articles/. His work is an > important piece of the next generation of energy & propulsion technologies > (beyond granting insight into the nature of space-time itself). > > You are obviously a very intelligent person and I don't disagree with > parts of your theoretical framework, but from my perspective, you always > seem to think there is only "one way" of perceiving/interpreting the > evidence. This is very convenient for the perpetuation of your particular > belief system. Then conversations devolve into pointless polemics over > minutia. I just don't really understand the pointless tunnel-vision > and lack of self-awareness. You take your loose associations too seriously, > insist on their reality, and assume there could be no other plausible > explanation/interpretation beside your own. There are many reality tunnels > by which "truth" can be arrived at -- if I prefer Schauberger to Shoulders > what does it matter? There is no "right" or "wrong" here -- everyone is > fishing: > > http://evgars.com/Shauberger.htm > > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *just another wannabe who can't take criticism* >> >> If you want to understand the origin, development, and effect of >> longitudinal waves, then look at the theory and experiments of Ken >> Shoulders. He observe dark mode vortex production and the resultant >> projection of a monopole magnetic field a long time ago. I am just reviving >> the doctrinaire that Ken developed over a long and brilliant career. >> >> You want to understand this subject, but stop looking at waves in a river >> and understand what happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit >> involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of >> nano-particles. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of >>> text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead >>> of calling it "conceptual junk"? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it >>> is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you >>> many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling >>> ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. >>> >>> I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I >>> don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your >>> extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some >>> calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual >>> name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it >>> subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take >>> criticism. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >>>> re-depositing it elsewhere >>>> >>>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>>> >>>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>>> material. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. >>>>> I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >>>>> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >>>>> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >>>>> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >>>>> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >>>>> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >>>>> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he >>>>> and >>>>> Mallove believed was legitimate. >>>>> >>>>> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for >>>>> material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set >>>>> up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other >>>>> vortex, >>>>> is quite good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material >>>>> and >>>>> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >>>>> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >>>>> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >>>>> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >>>>> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >>>>> the vacuum. >>>>> >>>>> All speculation of course. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >>>>>> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >>>>>> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >>>>>> >>>>>> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, >>>>>> he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their >>>>>>> specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system >>>>>>> fully, >>>>>>> many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to >>>>>>> understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the >>>>>>> critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification >>>>>>> mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the >>>>>>> dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects >>>>>>> predominate. To >>>>>>> understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that >>>>>>> reveals >>>>>>> all the facts in the story of the nano system >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in >>>>>>> Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I >>>>>>>> disagree with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash >>>>>>>> measurements from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I >>>>>>>> still have a lot of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his >>>>>>>> theory applies better to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" >>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>> than it does to LENR, but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in >>>>>>>> both. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As >>>>>>>> I think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the >>>>>>>> analogy of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a >>>>>>>> non-equilibrium, >>>>>>>> non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in >>>>>>>> "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip >>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>> I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any >>>>>>>> sort >>>>>>>> of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear >>>>>>>> reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without >>>>>>>> needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed >>>>>>>> some light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> that, because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> wealth of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they >>>>>>>> promised to >>>>>>>> at last years ICCF. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there >>>>>>>>> are a few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic >>>>>>>>> invention (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which >>>>>>>>> device >>>>>>>>> others have belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> historians of overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to >>>>>>>>> explain but is there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is >>>>>>>>> any evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes >>>>>>>>> deuterium >>>>>>>>> fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all >>>>>>>>> nanomagnetic. >>>>>>>>> Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of >>>>>>>>> superferromagnetism >>>>>>>>> and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same >>>>>>>>> phenomenon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement >>>>>>>>> error - noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* Alan Fletcher >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Foks0904 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, >>>>>>>>> his MIT colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his >>>>>>>>> collaboration >>>>>>>>> with MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the >>>>>>>>> ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: >>>>>>>>> "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you >>>>>>>>> guys/gals >>>>>>>>> enjoy: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An outline can be found here: >>>>>>>>> http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to >>>>>>>>> discrete breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and >>>>>>>>> (super?)-ferro-magnetism are closely related (and that the latter >>>>>>>>> persists >>>>>>>>> up to a thousand degrees.). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized >>>>>>>>> ferromagnetic effect tapping into vacuum energy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Needs a transcript. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
