*Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18.*
Herein lies the problem with the LENR community. It is mired in the misconceptions of the deuterium/palladium history of LENR that has developed over the last 25 year, with the quest for tritium and the fusion to helium. This is Ed's tradition and is unfortunately a wrong turn in the understanding of LENR. Dr Miley is more on track and Ed derides Miley's ideas. A bad sign, Ed discounts my heroes and the foundation of my thinking. Ed need to be returned to the proper theoretical camp, I owe it to Ed, his position in LENR deserve no less. I am anonymous and as such I avoid the complications and the pitfalls of ego and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been > peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white > paper at ICCF-18. I'd need a much clearer definition of what the "soliton > theory of LENR" is before I trust that could disprove anything. Do you > actually mean "your theory"? The theory that has never appeared in print > (beside a fractured mosaic of message board posts) and has never been > subjected to any real scrutiny or test whatsoever? And if you mean > Shoulders' theory instead, well that isn't your theory, and like I said it > would disprove all fusion models, not just Ed's. You have a preoccupation > with Ed because he dared to call you out for being a fuzzy thinker. > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is >> incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment >> Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent >> voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then >> others may follow. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed >>> Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and >>> transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't >>> understand your rant in the slightest. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed >>>> Storms seriously. >>>> >>>> A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the >>>> plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is >>>> one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. >>>> >>>> Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. >>>> Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. >>>> >>>> The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a >>>> direction normal to its direction of current rotation. >>>> >>>> Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in >>>> projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish >>>> and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments >>>> that I can reference *ad nauseam.* >>>> >>>> http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf >>>> >>>> * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * >>>> Snip >>>> >>>> Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results >>>> for the >>>> >>>> traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental >>>> data. >>>> >>>> (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is >>>> charged, as >>>> >>>> nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. >>>> >>>> (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not >>>> be able to >>>> >>>> pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black >>>> paper.* >>>> >>>> (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are >>>> observed. >>>> >>>> (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the >>>> photosensitive >>>> >>>> layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed >>>> >>>> energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. >>>> >>>> (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic >>>> fields. >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent >>>>>> structures can become stable * >>>>>> >>>>>> There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended >>>>>> period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around >>>>>> within >>>>>> the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the >>>>>> BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, >>>>>> but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by >>>>>> beta >>>>>> decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron >>>>>> releases >>>>>> its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does >>>>>> not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for >>>>>> spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an >>>>>> aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro >>>>>> particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark >>>>>> discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. >>>>>> The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the >>>>>> support >>>>>> of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized >>>>>> for >>>>>> long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection >>>>>> of >>>>>> a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he >>>>>> never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his >>>>>> experimental explanations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
